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 -
Salaries that don't go down fall under Chesterton's fence, and you should make a better attempt to understand why people want them before deciding that we should get rid of them.
Actual human beings need to do long term planning, if only for things like "I'll know that if I keep this job I'll still be able to survive next year". Predictability is important, and salaries that don't go down are a lot more valuable than salaries that do, over and above the loss in money from the salary going down.
(Note that a common libertarian answer, "well, they can take insurance against their salary going down", doesn't work because the argument is that this desire should be eliminated from the market, not just satisfied in some way other than through salary. After all, an employer who won't lower salaries is already providing implicit insurance.)
And we do have salaries that go up and down. They are limited to either 1) low-end jobs where the effective salary varies because of tips, but the jobs are undesirable in general, such as odd working hours, bad conditions, and low pay; or 2) high end jobs where the salary doesn't matter, i.e. executives getting bonuses.
Also, notice that your reasoning leads to "it's irrational to rent an apartment for a year under a lease that has a constant monthly rent, rather than letting the landlord raise and lower the rent."
Lots of midrange jobs have pay that effectively goes up or down. It takes many forms, the most common is a bonus, but also fixed period equity grants, incentives based on company performance, and taxable fringe benefits. Most big companies have a big chunk of comp in these areas over the base pay.
Equity grants work especially well because they automagically go down if the company is doing bad, but the company can always top them up. And if the company wants to cut pay even more than the drop in stonk price, they can decline refreshers.
More options
Context Copy link
If the government is doing its job, the salaries will go down anyway, in real terms if not in nominal terms. That's why a small amount of predictable inflation is considered good for an economy; because it lets wages adjust without ever having to go down in nominal terms; you just grow some of them slower than others!
At that point, whether the job will still let you survive next year or not depends on how much your salary went up (if at all) compared to the price of other things; it is very much not guaranteed. Which is exactly the same as if the nominal wages had been allowed to go up or down without inflation; the mechanism is just hidden as a concession to human nature.
The alternative is that salaries never go down in real terms, which is actually really bad when you think about it? Solve for the equilibrium.
People object to inflation like they do to salaries going down, for similar reasons.
They have a lot less power to stop inflation. (yeah, they can vote for the other guy. It generally doesn't work, and when it does they notice the prices are still high and punish the guy they voted in for that by bringing the previous bunch back).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm not sure to what equilibrium you are referring; can you elaborate?
The great-uncle comment by @The_Nybbler already covers some of the things companies would do to get around this; laying off higher-paid workers and hiring new workers at lower wages. Another likely consequence is that companies would be much less willing to give raises when times are good, because now raises are a much bigger commitment. And if a company is unwilling or unable to do these things, it might well go under because it simply is unprofitable at higher salaries.
Now, what happens to the newly unemployed workers? If they are willing to work at a lower wage, they can probably find new work soon enough, but now they have to eat the transaction cost of switching jobs; if they were willing to take lower wages in the first place, they could have just stayed with the same employer. Alternatively, if they are not willing to take lower wages, thinking themselves too good for them now that they have been employed at a higher wage, they end up in a sad imitation of Latrell Sprewell refusing a $7 million deal because "I have a family to feed", and the world has to do without their labor until they get desperate enough to change their minds.
This can all be avoided by simply letting real wages vary up and down, and the easiest way to do that is to inflate nominal wages less or more; that way, the number never goes down.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Wage stickiness is a complication, but salaries still do go up and down. Instead of individual salaries going down, expensive individuals get laid off and/or juniors are hired at lower rates than previously. Though the general "solution" to wage stickiness has been inflation, and that's been around long enough to pass the fence.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link