site banner

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
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I think that FDR's only real blunder was not realizing how quickly the average life expectancy of a 21-year-old American would rise. The first monthly payment of Social Security was issued in 1940 to a 65-year-old. Of all the men who were born in 1875 and made it to 21-years-old (thus eliminating the infant mortality effect on life expectancy statistics), about 54% made it to 65 and collected social security. Those were the numbers FDR was working with. A little over half of people, dragged up by women's longer life spans (60% of their cohort made it from 21 to 65), would live to actually collect social security.

By 1960 this number was 60% of men, 70% of women. In 1990 the men who turned 65 that year and got their social security checks represented 72% of their age cohort who made it to 21, along with 83% of women.

Similarly, those men that turned 65 in 1940 were expected to live another 13 years, and collect benefits for all 13. The women, 15 years. In 1990, the men were expected to live 15 years, the women 20. This is all from the Social Security Administration's own website. I'm sure that if you found the actuarial tables on the cohorts turning 65 in 2000, 2010, and 2020, you'd see this number just keep going up.

That's why its going broke. It was designed for a certain amount of people to live, and gosh darn it people just kept on living more.

That was predictable. Life expectancy had been going up at the time.

There were other predictable problems:

  1. If the number of children born decreased. The demographics have to look like a pyramid, if it looks like a tube the thing falls apart.
  2. If the government ever touches the money allocated for social security.
  3. If any politician comes along and offers to make social security more generous.

If the government ever touches the money allocated for social security.

It's actually mandated by the program that they do. It purchases treasuries. What would you have them do with it?

Anything other than US treasuries. The whole point of the trust fund should be not to require government action to repay.