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 -
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link