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 United Auto Workers have gone on strike: https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/us-auto-union-strike-three-detroit-three-factories-2023-09-15/
What happens if Ford and GM simply say: "okay, you're fired"? This seems to have quite a few benefits, mostly that they can get rid of union workers and remove the threat of another strike.
I'll admit that unions sortof confuse me. I didn't grow up around them and have always wondered the mechanism by which everybody gets to quit their job but then demand extra money to come back. Are the people running factory machines inside of Ford and GM (or starbucks, or a hollywood writers room) really that highly skilled?
It should be noted that Tesla is not unionized, and will not be a part of this strike. Do you guys think there is a chance that the government tries to force Tesla to stop making cars during the strike to make things more fair?
I'll be honest about my feelings towards unions: I don't get it at all, and I think I'm missing something. I do think that workers should have an adversarial relationship with their employer, but it seems to me like unions have all but destroyed the american auto industry. I think you'd be insane to not just fire anybody who joins a union on the spot. I don't get how places can "vote to unionize". Why does the employer not simply fire the people doing the organizing? Sure you can all vote to make a starbucks union, but...I just won't hire anybody in your union.
A union is a way to force the C-Suite and investors to share some of the massive amounts of wealth that they hoard (and ultimately waste on trifles). UAW has 145k employees, who are real people that have a greater quality of life because of union activity. I don’t know if you can say that unions destroyed the auto industry, as Japan has an auto union. It’s more likely that German and Japanese cars are popular because they make better cars irrespective of unions in the same way Japan historically makes better electronics (why is PlayStation competitive against Xbox?) and parts, and Germany pharmaceuticals (despite a high employee quality of life). East Asian phones and laptops are also pretty much superior to anything America’s non-unionized tech workers come up with, even though America wins out due to Apple’s marketing.
Isn't that supposed to work by developing a skill that the "C-Suite" wants? (The people making the most money on these companies, btw, are not the "c-suite", its' the investors who own the company)
How does one "hoard" money?
That’s why I wrote “C-Suite and investors”, btw. Why do you think that a person should only get the lowest amount their employer is willing to pay? That’s not how it is supposed to work. It’s supposed to work like the Peasant’s Revolt of 1381, or the Secessio Plebis of 490 BC, or the Khmelnytsky Uprising in 1650. It’s supposed to work like that in the sense that this is how it has historically worked, with the modern fantasy of “just compensation = set by employers” being an historical anomaly limited in scope. This modern fantasy is not found in developed European countries, neither is it found among white collar professionals like doctors and lawyers who lobby to increase their pay.
How does one hoard property?
You're basically asking that a low-skill worker at a company with high margins get paid more than a low-skill worker at a company with low margins, right?
It should be clear that this is inefficient. If I can choose to be a high-skill employee at a low-margin company or a low-skill employee at a high-margin company, it's clearly in society's best interest that I do the former. When wages are set by market rate this is, indeed, what happens. If we lived in your society then I'm going to squat on my high-paying low-skill job for as long as possible.
I don't relish the idea of economic inequality, but I put up with it because the alternative is Jeff Dean scrubbing pots. If you want to help poor people do it at the government level. Forcing successful companies to pay only their particular employees more is bonkers.
The efficiency that matters is if a larger portion of the population has a higher quality of life to produce more, healthier children, and if they have the resources to educate their children well. The efficiency that doesn’t matter is if we have rung out the lifeforce of 80% of the population so that 1% of people can waste resources lavishly. Surplus resources going to Bezos and wealthy stockholders is much more inefficient than if it were spread to his workers and increased their quality of life.
More options
Context Copy link
Automakers aren't even high-margin companies. 5% net margin is a pretty good year.
More options
Context Copy link
That's how things do work, yes, at a macro scale. American waiters are paid more than their Cambodian colleagues not because they are more skilled, but because their employers are richer and mostly can't afford to pay Cambodian wages.
IMO the right lens here is that American waiters have the valuable "capital" of living in America -- where there are high-earning consumers willing to pay for their labor.
In contrast, there's nothing more valuable about unionized workers compared to non-unionized workers (except their ability to rent seek).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
By not letting others use it. Do you imagine the investors in GM are somehow both investing in GM but also not allowing other people to use their wealth?
Do you think people invest without receiving appreciation or dividends? What do they do with that? Do they give it all away, or do they buy expensive unnecessary things for pure vanity, wasting the resources required to train its manufacturers, then manufacture it, then ship it, then store it, etc.
It is not possible to both hoard money and also give it to somebody else in exchange for goods and services.
I'm sorry for picking on this, but this particular thing is a pet peeve of mine. The idea that it is even possible to "hoard" money in any meaningful way is a fundamental misunderstanding of money. The only way I could think of accomplishing this would be to literally hold us paper currency in a vault. Nobody does that.
Okay, we can see if that way, but then they are doing something infinitely worse — abusing and destroying resources, value, and potential, which are what underlies the importance of money.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link