site banner
PaperclipPerfector  10d ago (text post)   33708 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

median income in Eugene is $30k. In the US, the top 10% of taxpayers provide about 70% of government funding. If you invite people who make less than the top 10% into your town, you make your town poorer.

I’m not following… absent some additional assumptions (e.g., that the median income in your town is initially >= top 10% income for the US), how does inviting people who make less than the top 10% make your town poorer? The part about the top 10% of taxpayers providing 70% of tax receipts seems irrelevant.

sorry the median income in Eugene is irrelevant to this. I just meant to say everyone who you invite to your town that makes less than $100k consumes more in taxes than they pay

You have to account for all the surplus value they generate that gets captured by their employers, landlords, and uncompetitive or exploitative local industries like food.

I have a hard time appreciating this POV. It sounds pleasant but how is this quantified?

Example: a family of 4 moves to my town, attracted by affordable housing. Dad works full-time delivering pallets of sugar water for $20/hour. Mom picks up DoorDash shifts while kids are at daycare school for some extra bucks. So, lets say their household income is $45,000/year.

Their two kids consume approximately $6000/month in public school funds alone, or $72,000/year. That's just going by their kids in school.

Are we arguing that the value provided by sugar water delivery and DoorDash makes up for the cost of putting their kids in school, to say nothing of all of their other socialized costs (roads, police, fire, sanitation, etc)? Am I looking through the wrong lens here? Because I can't see how society is ever ahead in this scenario.

Public schools spend a lot, but it doesn’t cost anywhere near $6000/month. The American average is more like $1000/month.

Now I’m not claiming that lots of lower middle class families are good for the city budget. But public school costs are only about half their family income(Catholic schools could get the job done for a third, if you’re looking for a benchmark of ‘how much of that is just the government spending more money because it can’).

Their kids will only be in school for twelve years, while they'll be working for about four or more decades in all probability, so you need to factor that into your hypothetical. I don't know if all things equal out in favor of them producing positive value, but I do know that it's tricky calculating such things and that your own calculations have so far neglected crucial points.

Also I don't think your numbers for the cost of schooling are correct. I thought there was an article on the original SSC saying the annual cost per student is 10k or something.

From https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/book-review-the-cult-of-smart

The average district spends $12,000 per pupil per year on public schools (up to $30,000 in big cities!)

My $3000/month number is is computed it from my local district's 2025 budget statement. We're not even a big city.

Note schools in general bullshit the number into being about half of that by telling you what the program expenses are, but they're not telling you about total costs like grants to build them shiny (or shitty) buildings that are depreciating. You have to dig more to calculate that.

Their kids will only be in school for twelve years, while they'll be working for about four or more decades in all probability, so you need to factor that into your hypothetical.

Do we? OK, the state will spend $360,000 per kid just to put them through school alone (again, not counting CHIP, and other social costs), and one of them will perhaps be employable enough to get their own sugar water delivery job for $40,000/year for 40 years while the other takes half of that time off to look after their future kids who repeat the cycle. Then they start drawing retirement benefits and maybe cost $10k/month in health care for the last 1-10 years of their life.

This isn't a total accounting but I'm not seeing obvious upside here.

Yeah, i suppose if you're living somewhere with high inefficiency and waste the numbers will be extremely negative for all but the upper echelons of society. My model of modern society is that much of its value is produced by machines (capital) which only require skeleton crews of mechanics and engineers to maintain, and that asides from those specialists and the capitalists who own the machines, most other people are superfluous. On the other hand, democracy provides a brutish sort of power to those superfluous people, and thus they are able to extract value beyond what their economic potential would otherwise command. So the attempt to internally partition countries along these class lines could be seen as a class warfare attempt to undermine democracy.

Are we arguing that the value provided by sugar water delivery and DoorDash makes up for the cost of putting their kids in school

Yes. While this may be the price tag, there is no way in hell it takes $6000 per month to teach a single child. For this money you could literally hire a governess for each child (well, +/- the sudden spike in demand for teachers), and operating at scale is supposed to make things cheaper.

It's not reasonable to substitute some idealized, hyper efficient cost for what education actually costs. Could it be cheaper? Obviously. But $6k a month (or whatever) is what it currently actually costs.

As a side note, you are right about "for that much money you could ___", and that's why taxes are collected at gunpoint.

Relax. It's only $3000 month per kid. It's $6000 per month for two kids.

Isn't that still a decent salary for a governess?

Yes, I didn't like public school to begin with but learning how ludicrously expensive it actually is is what radicalized me on homeschooling.

While public schools are mostly run by functionaries who are their jobs as being about spending as much money as possible as inefficiently as possible and think the rest of society exists solely to serve that goal, education is also just expensive. Eyeballing Catholic schools near me, tuition for one kid is about $6500/yr at schools attached to working class parishes(upper middle class ones list tuition as ‘it depends’, which probably means it’s subsidized for all but the very wealthy)- with subsidized tuition for subsequent children(presumably this subsidy is paid by the Catholic Church, either at the parish level or by the diocese). My local school district spends just under $10k/yr per kid, not counting capital improvements(Catholic schools don’t either, so this is a fair comparison). So by that comparison about 35% of public school spending is overspending. Charters in my state get about $10,000/yr, with an additional $1,000/student in years with construction going on at the school, so more like public schools.

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