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 -
Then historically there is a shortage of Americans who are willing to work but currently don't. Which is the claim being made here.
Of course it's classic supply and demand, more supply of labor (whether through automation or immigration or whatever) means cheaper labor costs. This also of course can mean products are cheaper and more available to buy as products become easier and cheaper to create. Immigration isn't as strong as automation since immigrants also consume (contribute to demand), but for very specific sectors where they cluster labor prices get driven down.
It's the inverse logic of why unions drive prices up and make stuff less affordable and less accessible to the average American. It's great for the union workers who get to hold the country hostage, it's bad for everyone else. Regulatorally enforced high labor costs benefits those who do labor by taking from those who need the labor done, like with elevators. Maybe it's a tradeoff we want to make, disabled people like the author, apartment dwellers, etc get less elevators in exchange for the elevator union having higher pay, but it is a tradeoff.
Same way that maybe we'd rather prefer American citizen construction workers get paid a lot of money over providing cheaper housing to our youth and our poor, we can make that tradeoff, but it is unavoidably one.
No, the claim being made here is that the labor shortage and associated rise in wages is a bad thing and I am disagreeing. I find it telling that the all the leisure-class liberals who claim to support labor and be all about "paying people a living wage" immediately change tack when it comes time to actually pay those wages.
Those things are bad and distortionary, any hypocrisy aside doesn't change it. This is a tautological statement: "Higher prices means higher prices". If you want labor to be paid more, then it means people who pay for the labor can afford it less easily.
It is unsolvable, just like the housing market or any other. It is literally impossible for the seller of labor/homes/etc to make more money and have the buyer pay less. You must make a tradeoff when meddling.
In the long run the government is typically subsidizing these industries via providing a settlement pathway to foreign workers at the bottom end. A green card or a Western passport is worth considerably more than any tenure of unpleasant work and that cost will eventually be repatriated from taxpayers
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, and?
Are you arguing that supporting labor is bad, or are you arguing that "paying people a living wage" is bad?
The second one, a "living wage" is a meaningless phrase. Especially in the US, where the only thing that can't be easily accessed even the poorest 10% of Americans, housing, is not because of a lack of pay but because of deliberate political decisions to restrict new supply.
And to inflate demand. 10-30 million illegal immigrants live somewhere, and sending them home would free up a ton of housing.
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