site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 11, 2024

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.

7
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Hedonic adjustments, fake and gay?

There's been a lot of talk about a U.S. "vibecession" lately. In the last couple of years, incomes have risen, unemployment remains minuscule, the stock market is roaring, and inflation has returned to normal levels. Yet, when polled, Americans remain gloomy about the state of economy. What gives? Why aren't we partying like it's 1999?

The usual suspects are out as usual, telling us to ignore our lying eyes, pointing at charts, and saying ackchually, the economy is doing quite well thank you very much.

I don't think so.

Larry Summers, former Treasury Secretary and consummate insider, had this to say:

"We show that if we make an effort to reconstruct the CPI of Okun’s era [1970s]—which would have had inflation peak last year around 18%, we are able to explain 70% of the gap in consumer sentiment we saw last year."

18% annual inflation is quite a lot. The official number peaked at only 9%.

Of course, none of this is news. People have been complaining about inflation numbers being fake for awhile now. A can of Campbell's soup cost $0.40 in 2000, but rose to $1.23 by 2023. That implies an annual inflation rate of 5%, vs. the official number of only 2.5%. And while this is just a single product, similar patterns have held true among other immutable products like gasoline or Coca-Cola.

On the other hand, there are hedonic adjustments. Unlike a Campbell's soup can, a TV in 2023 was nothing like a TV in 2000. It's better in nearly every way. So even though a family might still spend $500 to buy a TV, the quality has increased by 10x, so the price had reduced by 90%. Or something.

You can easily see how inflation numbers get fuzzy. One thing I don't think CPI is taking into account is the degradation in the quality of services post-pandemic. The price of an HVAC repair is skyrocketing. But the quality is plumetting. Does CPI measure that? Do they measure being guilted for tips at fast food restaurants and convenience stores? Do they measure waiting in line at the pharmacy for 45 minutes because there is only one harried pharmacist on duty? Do they measure being bombarded with ads where previously there were none. Do they adjust (up or down) when TikTok becomes 5% more addictive? I doubt it.

Nor could they. I doubt any of this can be measured.

And so we return to the can of soup and opinion polls. Maybe they're not such a bad measure of inflation after all. And I think they will show what many of us feel intuitively: that the economy is doing a lot worse than the official numbers show.

On the other hand, there are hedonic adjustments. Unlike a Campbell's soup can, a TV in 2023 was nothing like a TV in 20a00. It's better in nearly every way. So even though a family might still spend $500 to buy a TV, the quality has increased by 10x, so the price had reduced by 90%. Or something.

People keep making this argument whenever this subject comes up and I just find it baffling. The capabilities of a $500 smart TV 23 years into the future is of no consequence or relevance to someone in 2000 who wants to watch TV. It is going to have features you don't need, don't care about, can't even imagine and have no use for in 2000. There's no lesson to be learned, no argument to be considered. And it's not like you can buy a TV for $50 today that cost $500 in 2000, and even if you buy one, it'll be useless as it isn't compatible with any present-day systems and cables.

In 1980, you could be a big-shot lawyer in a big city while only being reachable on a rotary phone and by mail. In 2000, you only needed a mobile phone as an improvement, with no smart features at all, of course. You didn't want more, didn't need more, and nobody expected you to be available all the time.

Today, however, we're surely at a point where the lowliest office worker and lowliest handyman is expected to have a smartphone with some DM app installed, because people expect to communicate with you instantly via direct messaging. Especially your shitty boss.

Technological innovation does not necessarily translate into improvements in quality of life.

I think the argument makes sense when you considered like a choice offered to society. If in the 00s we were given a choice to preserve TV quality in amber but they'd steadily become cheaper to where they're $50 today or let the price stay relatively stable but the quality improve to where they are today with far larger and clearer screens and more features then I think most, but not all, people would probably pick the second option. So when there are complaints about how we didn't get the first option as well it kind of feels a little ungrateful for all the improvements we did get.

Didn't we get the first option as well, even, for those who would prefer it? I search for "television" on Craigslist and immediately find two 30"+ flatscreens, better than what I grew up with, for $50 or less each.