site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   29600 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 2, 2023

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.

11
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I'm not sure any solution can be evaluated outside of what has caused the problem. Probably chief among them, an aging population. Even if it's aging slower than other first world nations "thanks" to immigration, it's still aging. So the ratio of young people supporting old people on social security keeps skewing worse and worse.

The other reason, which may be less supported, is Federal Reserve policy. When the whole system is funded with T-Bills, every time inflation spikes or rates get slashed, social security takes it dry. Even in good times, the same "use it or lose it" dilemma the Fed forces consumers into to keep our consumer economy consuming along with their 2% inflation target is punishing social security. Both by increasing the rate at which it needs to make it's inflation adjusted payouts, and for the last 15 years of low rate environment destroying it's interest payments because inflation supposedly wasn't high enough.

Raise the payroll cap, raise the payroll taxes, widen the tax base, privatize the system, none of it will matter. You need to goose the fertility rate, and not play silly games with immigration to fake the numbers. And you need sound money. Everything else is a bandaid doomed to fail.

Raise the payroll cap, raise the payroll taxes, widen the tax base, privatize the system, none of it will matter.

What makes you say that? The numbers I looked at suggest those tax changes would go a very far way towards addressing funding shortfalls. Raising birthrates would be ideal but if we could do that on command, we definitely already would. Most likely we'll have a combination of raising taxes, cutting benefits, and raising the retirement age - all stuff nobody likes, unfortunately.

What makes you say that? The numbers I looked at suggest those tax changes would go a very far way towards addressing funding shortfalls.

Do those numbers take into account continued declines in fertility? Do they take into account Fed policy decisions in line with the last 20 years of Fed policy decisions? What assumptions did they make about T-Bill returns or inflation?

I just can't be brought to trust the numbers anymore. Estimates in advocacy for policy changes always make optimistic assumptions to make the numbers work. Although perhaps I did come on too strong saying "none of it will matter". It might buy us a few more years, and I'm sure some politicians will pat themselves on the back for yet another non-solution.

Do those numbers take into account continued declines in fertility?

Social Security makes projections 75 years into the future and does take declining fertility into account:

The costs of both programs will grow faster than GDP through the mid-2030s primarily due to the rapid aging of the U.S. population, and generally continue to increase thereafter at a slower rate through 2076. This is because the number of beneficiaries rises rapidly as baby boomers retire and also because the persistently lower birth rates since the baby boom cause slower growth of employment and GDP.

Re:

What assumptions did they make about T-Bill returns or inflation?

The return on investment in the trust funds has been consistently about 10% total and 6% for OASI. Social Security payouts have a COLA increase based on inflation each year, and can sometimes adjust upward month to month based on the CPI. This is all factored into their budget & projections.

I'm sure some politicians will pat themselves on the back for yet another non-solution.

I mean it may be imperfect but raising taxes is more of a solution than hoping we have more kids.

I mean it may be imperfect but raising taxes is more of a solution than hoping we have more kids.

They're somewhat in opposition, insofar as raising taxes in the ways you suggest would transfer resources from the fertile population to the infertile population. Imagine raising social security contributions, but transferring the extra income to people under the retirement age who are medically certified as infertile. Of course, it's hard to say how much of an effect such transfers would have on the birth rate, but presumably they would be negative.

Fair counterpoint. OTOH, raising retirement ages probably also has some effect on the job market & wages as well, in terms of decreasing potential promotion opportunities. No idea how large that would be either and I assume in reality we'll do a mix of everything, maybe raise taxes slightly plus raise retirement ages and reduce benefits.

Yes. My preference in such cases is usually for reducing benefits (either in each case or through means-testing) but I appreciate that it's not usually a sufficient solution.

Raise the payroll cap, raise the payroll taxes, widen the tax base, privatize the system, none of it will matter.

Yes it will. Read the trustees report and stop being so hysterical.

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