site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2mo ago (text post)   37345 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 27, 2025

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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Unfortunately:

  • https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1DoKf. Number of weeks of the median US wage to afford a median US house has gone up by, what, 60%, since the 80s.
  • https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1DoL3. Number of weeks of the median US wage to afford the mean cost of ground beef (wish I could find median) was lowest in ~1999 and has since risen by, what, 80%?
  • https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1DoMe. Number of weeks of the median US wage to afford the mean car loan. Indirectly, unfortunately, so take it with a bit of a grain of salt. I couldn't find a raw 'median cost of a car sale'. Still does nicely show the 2008-2009 spike and return to status quo in about 2012 or so, and then COVID weirdness that hasn't come back down to the prior level since.

CPI's approach to dynamic price-weighting means that if a good becomes unaffordable it ends up downweighted. (As one example: from 2011 to 2023 CPI-U's College tuition and fees weighting dropped from 1.695 to 1.275, even as the relevant CPI went up from 692 to 928.)

There are situations where this behavior is appropriate and useful; this is not one of them.

The housing crisis is bad, but that's a result of (local) government policy and is unlikely to be fixed by tariffs. If anything, increasing the cost of lumber (much of which comes from Canada) will increase the cost of construction even further.

Ground beef is somewhat more expensive these days, but it was pretty cheap in 2010 and I don't recall that being a particularly great economy. It's not hard to cherry pick a commodity that's in an expensive part of the cycle right now. Canada also exports half a million tons of beef, so slapping tariffs on that is not going to move the price in the direction you want.

Car loan price seems broadly stable since 2008 modulo the spikes you mentioned. It also doesn't capture the 40% (estimate based on googling) of cars that aren't financed at all.

This is interesting, but besides my point. As we seem to be talking past each other, let me back up a step here and outline the scenario in question:

  1. Status quo. Everything is on the edge of affordability, give or take.
  2. Some production is moved out of the country, to a place where cost of labor is lower.
  3. Average wages inside the country drop.
  4. (As a sidenote: people inside the country can no longer afford country-made products, and so shift their purchasing to cheaper imports. CPI goes up here, as I mentioned, as country-made products are price-weighted out of the basket.)
  5. Overall real wages stay the same or even drop within the country - though this is most visible for that which cannot easily be produced elsewhere.

It also doesn't capture the 40% (estimate based on googling) of cars that aren't financed at all.

I am aware. As I said, I couldn't find a raw 'median cost of a car sale'. I'd love for you to point me at better numbers for this series.

Average wages inside the country drop.

This assumes that the workers who were producing that thing were paid more than average and get a new job paying less than average (or stay unemployed).

(As a sidenote: people inside the country can no longer afford country-made products, and so shift their purchasing to cheaper imports. CPI goes up here, as I mentioned, as country-made products are price-weighted out of the basket.)

This seems fine in many cases. Often the products made outside of the country are just as good (lumber) or even better (cars) as those made in the country. I don't view this as impoverishment.

This assumes that the workers who were producing that thing were paid more than average and get a new job paying less than average (or stay unemployed).

Either the average wage in the country drops or unemployment rises, or both. Look at it this way: the immediate total monetary flow of wages in the country drops by the amount that was moved outside the country.

Of course, you can argue for countering second-order effects in the longer term... but this gets back to the original point that you appeared to be attempting to refute, which is "outsourcing is an it-depends not an obvious win". Arguing for countering second-order effects against a first-order loss is decidedly still in the category of "it depends" not "an obvious win".

This seems fine in many cases. Often the products made outside of the country are just as good (lumber) or even better (cars) as those made in the country. I don't view this as impoverishment.

This would be true if it was feasible to move everything outside the country. However, there are many critical things that aren't. (As a topical example: you can't move the landscaping work required for building a house in the middle of a country outside said country, for hopefully obvious reasons.)

but this gets back to the original point that you appeared to be attempting to refute, which is "outsourcing is an it-depends not an obvious win". Arguing for countering second-order effects against a first-order loss is decidedly still in the category of "it depends" not "an obvious win".

No, the point I'm trying to refute is that FTAs are not a benefit for most people. I freely admit that the guys who used to assemble cars in Detroit would be better off with 200% tariffs on imported cars. It's just that most Americans don't assemble cars in Detroit.

This would be true if it was feasible to move everything outside the country. However, there are many critical things that aren't. (As a topical example: you can't move the landscaping work required for building a house in the middle of a country outside said country, for hopefully obvious reasons.)

I don't see what this has to do with my point. Things that can't be moved outside the country, aren't.

Things that can't be moved outside the country, aren't.

...meaning that if wages drop within the country, anything that can't be moved outside the country's effective price rises. When this includes essentials...

Many essentials can be moved outside the country, though, or otherwise made cheaper through mechanization. Lots of vegetables come from Mexico and staples are much cheaper than they historically used to be thanks to combines.

To look at only the first order effects here is to miss the entire point. The first order effect is what is seen, but you are missing everything that is not seen. We wouldn't be better off today we kept all the farming jobs that people were doing in 1900 around, even if a farmer losing his job to a combine "reduces average wages" when you look at it in a very specific way.

Unfortunately, people do not need "many" essentials, by definition. They need "all" essentials.

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