This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
The spacex IPO has happened and made Elon Musk a Trillionaire.
There are probably hundreds of potential topics from this story, feel free to go off on your own tangents.
What I am interested in is that this is a company that is building real world things, and not fake internet shit. It feels like a lot of new wealth and investment in America comes from and is directed to the internet. I think one of the main reasons has been that large investors are generally play-it-safe followers. They see which companies are newly striking it rich: Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, Google, Apple, etc. And they are happy to invest in copy-cats.
I'm hoping the spacex IPO has a similar effect. That investors start chasing new copy cats. But this time copy-cats of spacex rather than copy cats of facebook or google.
From what I can gather, the consensus on the left side of the political spectrum in the USA is that it's a great injustice that there exists a trillionaire in a world where there exists poverty. Now, there are a lot of implicit beliefs and values mixed up in such a judgment, such as the false notion that it would be possible to fix world poverty or even USA "poverty" with a trillion dollars in cash and that it would be possible for Musk to convert his net worth into a trillion dollars in cash (at its limit, people literally seem to believe that Musk has a bank account somewhere with 13 digits on its balance, claiming that he's "hoarding" the wealth, as if that wealth isn't actually in the form of various companies that are functioning to produce and sell things right now). It seems like it's mostly driven by a hatred of inequality and a desire to collect one's pound of flesh.
Which I think is perfectly reasonable. One of the many reasons Musk is able to have such a high net worth is the fairly dependable capitalist system that we all uphold and partake in, and demanding that he pay the government a fee for the sole reason to appease our envy, even at the cost to overall prosperity and wellbeing of humanity might not be ideal, but it's not unreasonable.
But, as many people have pointed out, Musk - and any billionaire - has most of his assets in productive companies, and the productive nature of those companies is what makes them so valuable, and so liquidating them to put more money in the government coffers would both be logistically very difficult and also likely destroy a lot of value. If the government were to take shares away from Musk to take partial ownership of his companies, that would also likely destroy a lot of value, both because some of the value is tied to Musk being the owner and because the government is likely to have lower ownership skills than the typical private owner. Furthermore, since Musk's - and, again, almost any billionaire's - net worth is defined mostly by the market price of shares of his companies, which are volatile, it's difficult to even figure out the correct value of his net worth to use for any sort of wealth tax.
So I'm left wondering what sort of wealth tax could be implemented, in a way that doesn't destroy too much value while still being meaningful enough to appease the envious (though some may argue that the limit does not exist for that one). It would probably have to take some sort of rolling average of net worth over a period of time, the tax would have to be something like in the form of non-voting shares, and perhaps we'd need to create a ton of new government bureaucracy jobs to manage the logistics of all of that. In effect making almost any company above a certain value automatically partially nationalized. It would have to be progressive without some sharp cutoff point so that there's no single value that any company owner is motivated to keep under. We'd also likely need to have laws around giving shares to family members in order to skirt around the wealth tax - either that or just accept the creation of essentially an aristocracy where successful company owners keep sharing their wealth with more and more family members while still being de facto owners in order to minimize their wealth tax burden. Along with a bunch more government jobs to enforce this.
Of course, I heavily doubt that any of the collected money would have meaningful impact on solving poverty. On net, with the additional government costs and the reduced income tax collections from the employees of these companies, it might actually leave less money to fight poverty than just the current system as-is. But that's not the point, the point is to take money away from really rich people.
I'm not an economist, so I'm probably missing a lot of things. Does anyone have any good ideas for how the USA could implement this without causing too much economic harm? Would be especially good if it could stand up to Constitutional scrutiny as well (of course, the Constitution can always be changed or ignored, but both tend to create a lot more friction and pain than otherwise).
A tax that could be implemented without actually destroying much value is requiring sufficiently large companies to employ worthies in well-paying sinecures. That is, presumably, the actual demand when you boil it down; much of the left side of the spectrum's representation is about how unfair it is that their degrees in fan fiction from a communist's ass don't automatically result in a high standard of living. Of course, that doesn't mean the median leftist believes this; most presumably are not the twitterati socialists who believe they should have a comfortably above median standard of living without doing any actual work, on the strength of their ideological purity(mostly expressed through degree-having). But the twitterati socialists are the representation to the public, and their enoblement would calm the rest of the leftists because they would no longer have an amplifier to their concerns.
The ringleaders, though, are doing just fine -- Bernie has several houses and a net worth of about $3M, whereas Warren's net worth is estimated at $12M.
He's also 84. Shockingly a lifetime of working and saving does eventually cause you to have substantial amounts of wealth. I think my 65 year old parents probably have about the same levels of net worth from a lifetime of dual-income working.
Bernie never really worked—just was a gadfly in the senate
I mean if you want to make linguistic judgements on the "definition" of "work" its a free country. He collected a paycheck from being a senator, senatorial aid, whatever. And has done so for awhile. Assuming normal middle class habits around saving and spending, then at 84 I would expect a low 7 figure net worth. It probably also helps that he hasn't retired like most of his peers at 65 meaning he probably still has neutral-ish spending.
This is a level of pedantry that borders on obnoxious.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Which is upper-middle-class wealth in a country as rich as America. I don't think there is anything surprising about, or wrong with a successful politician being upper-middle-class.
Taking Warren's $12 million net worth estimate at face value, this website calculates her wealth as being in the 98.5th American percentile. I guess she can still reasonably claim to be fighting against "the 1%"
More options
Context Copy link
$12M is close to top 1% in wealth. $3M is 94th percentile. This is not the upper middle class.
Does this include her congressional pension?
More options
Context Copy link
"Close to, but not in, the top 1%" is precisely what upper middle class means.
Also, wealth tends to accumulate over time. So "upper middle class wealth" for a 76-year-old like Warren is a higher dollar amount than it would be for us.
The only people who think that the upper class starts at 99% are people between 90%-99% who don't want to face the reality that they aren't middle class. "No officer, you don't understand, I'm only at 98.5%ile."
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link