site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2yr ago (text post)   30252 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 11, 2023

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.

9
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

For example: If a factory needs 5 people to work the machines but union regulations require them to hire 25 people instead of 5 then yes, each and every single member of the group of "workers" is a parasite sucking on the teat of the group of people who are "factory owners", even though the "factory owners" need the group "workers".

Unions are generally net-negative, but economic estimates of the magnitude is relatively low. It's when they co-opt government that it really becomes a problem. When they make it impossible to build a new school to educate more, say, dental hygienists (a sort of 'white collar cleaner', who are massively overpaid relative to the service they provide if our comparison is one where it is free and easy to start a new school that can train/license them), or any of a number of different jobs where they've made it near impossible to build a school, get licensing, certification, approved facilities, etc. Then, rather than being localized teat-sucking in isolated locations in a way that can be managed, it's industry-wide and enforced by the men with guns.

FWIW, the consensus of the anti-occupational licensing crowd is that dental hygienists are underpaid because the law requires them to work under the supervision of a dentist, and the cut they have to pay the dentist is higher than the benefit they get from being licensed themselves.

Hairdressing and interior design are the canonical examples of jobs that are licensed in most states but shouldn't be (neither is licensed in most European countries).

One of those things that should have been obvious to me but that I never considered. I want my teeth cleaned 3-4 times a year. I have little interest in seeing a dentist ever. Why the hell do I have to go to a dentist office? I just want a sweet woman who knows the right amount of polite conversation to make, is gentle with the water pick and scraper, and doesn't ask me questions while a utensil is in my mouth. Why does a dentist get a cut of this arrangement.

Also, I've had great hygienists who I would return to their office indefinitely if I knew where to find them. Instead, I go to the dentist and roll the dice with whomever I get. I can't even show customer loyalty to those who excel and allow them to build a clientele.

I'm interested; can you point me to a reference that estimates the relative effects? Thanks!

This is the famous paper, but rereading it, I realise that it only looks at the effect of regulations requiring hygienists to work under dental supervision, showing a 10% wage drop (and an even larger loss to consumers). But it doesn't estimate how much hygienists gain from restricting competition. Other work tends to give a premium >10% for licensed workers, which would imply that hygienists are net gainers. In general, most of the literature focusses on the cost to teeth of excessive regulation, not the cost or benefit to hygienists.

This is the only paper looking at both effects that I could find with a quick Google, but the author appears to have run the wrong regressions. One thing it does point out is that Connecticut is the most deregulated state on both metrics (anyone can become a dental hygienist by passing an exam, with no requirement to study at an accredited school or serve an apprenticeship, and hygienists can set up their own practices) and has the highest hygienist incomes - although this is obviously confounded by the fact that it is a high-wage state generally.

Thanks!

One comment about Connecticut in the second paper. They have the highest hygienist incomes on the chart, but the chart only shows three states and the national average. The text says, "Wages, at $67,450, and employment, at 95 DHs per 100,000, are higher than the national average, but well below the highest-ranking states."

And man, super depressing that even though Vermont has the highest number of hygienists per capita, they have one school that had only twenty-one graduates in the year they looked at (2006). That seems appalling to me. That all of the other states are worse really makes me think that we're wayyyy out from the equilibrium were we to significantly increase competition among schools and supply of trained hygienists.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats