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 catch here is that the “our youth and our poor” here would also largely be the people working these construction jobs, and all other jobs that now have the depressed wages. Easier to afford a $300,000 house on 40$/hour than a $200,000 house on $20/hour Not to mention that land is generally the largest price factor in housing, so the labor cost increase wouldn’t do that much anyway.
Your numbers are completely fictional though, the change in prices for buyers must be directly equal to the change in price for sellers. If I have a rare trading card and want to sell to a collector, the price is the same for both parties. If I make more, he must spend more. If he spends less, I must make less.
Even subsidizing the buyer just means a third party must take on the burden instead, it doesn't eliminate the problem. The only real world actual fix to have us both win (more than mutual trade already wins) without any losers is increasing productivity efficiency, devising ways to get two out of what previously only made one, like with agricultural science and food, or the economy of scale or ending artificial constraints on efficiency like regulation.
Increasing efficiency is the best way for sure. That’s unlikely to occur when extremely cheap labor is available. Besides, the increase in production would still result in the problem you pointed out: super efficient home building results in lower appreciation for existing homeowners. They lose in your scenario.
The numbers are fictional but the price on any given product would increase by less than the % gain in pay, as pay would not be increasing for the entire buyer-side, but only a portion, benefiting those being paid more at the expense of buyers who did not receive a pay increase. Sellers would win out, as in the made up numbers, but so would the now-better-paid workers.
Regardless yes markets are two sided, but the point here was addressing the “young and the poor.” Both of those groups could afford houses if they were being paid much more. The best houses in the best places? No, but most people don’t live in the 5 trendy metro hubs, and they still wouldn’t.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link