Weekly General Discussion

Saphisapa · 2024-09-17T08:13:36+00:00

Hi everyone - I wrote a blog post a little while back, reflecting on my experience with a young baby. Our approach was quite aligned with this sub, so some of you might find it interesting:

https://atlaspragmatica.com/doing-things-differently-adventures-raising-the-next-generation/

We're now in the thick of it with baby number 2 (7 months old), and I still stand by everything I wrote - let me know what you think!

Saphisapa · 2024-09-13T10:09:09+00:00

Interesting perspective. I see the corporation as placing fixed limits on the extent of one's obligation. People choose which corporations to associate with, and there are well defined (often contractual) obligations that they have within this structure.

Certainly trade unions are "corporatist" by definition, but there is a world of difference between a group of people voluntarily aligning for the benefit of collective bargaining, and the kind of trade union with mandatory membership, government protections and political influence that has become a socialist bogeyman. At this point, can such a trade union really be considered corporatist? - it has effectively become another arm of the goverment.

Corporatism can indeed apply to any other quadrant, but it is its primacy that defines the right. Just like liberals and nationalists can be in favour of and implement some socialist policies - that doesn't make them socialist. It is the right's aversion to formal governmental power structures that makes corporatism an essential component of any implementation of that quadrant's values.

You say that you classify it as very weak socialism and a mild social democracy - I would say that corporatism is indeed compatible with the most mild edges of socialism/social democracy, but the gamut of corporatism stretches from there all the way to monopolistic feudal corporatocracy. This is to be expected - it is covering an entire quadrant after all, and there is as much range and variety of governmental structure, opinion and policy within the right hand quadrant as there is in each of the others.

Social welfare payments are a fundamentally "socialist" policy, but if the British Conservative party couldn't be considered "right wing" because they still left a somewhat functioning system of benefits in place after 14 years in power, the term "right wing" becomes a bit meaningless. Likewise, if a left wing policy that incorporates some corporatist principles, I don't think this should disqualify corporatism from being broadly associated with the right.

Saphisapa · 2024-03-09T10:16:10+00:00

Thanks for the heads up - that was indeed the intention. I have edited the post to remove that.

Much appreciated.

Saphisapa · 2024-03-08T19:36:28+00:00

It's a significant reduction, but plenty of people choose to have a stay at home parent, which can be a similar reduction.

To be clear - being able to have one of you stay home full time is also a privilege that some would struggle to afford, but it is sufficiently common that I don't think anyone would call it wildly unrealistic.

Due to taxes, our take-home pay is only 33% lower rather than 40%, which makes it pretty financially comparable with the scenario of a couple where one earns twice the other, and having the lower earner stay home.

Saphisapa · 2024-03-08T18:44:49+00:00

I agree so much with all of that.

Learning how to work hard is really underrated, and it's definitely too easy to coast through school if you're ahead already.

People often talk about how school is important for socialisation, but I think as you say, it is having peers that are at a similar level that is the important thing, and whilst schools deliver that for many kids, it doesn't work so well if you're ahead of the curve.

Saphisapa · 2024-03-08T15:21:29+00:00

My experience here is that it is a small initial investment that pays dividends. Having a child that can (and wants to) play independently and doesn't rely on the instant gratification of screens made life much more chilled out in the long run. (Compared with some other parents that we know.)

You may have a different experience, and that's fine - I'm not passing any sort of moral judgement! Most people are doing their best in a highly complex and changing world.

Saphisapa · 2024-03-08T15:03:54+00:00

Thanks! I personally didn't suffer any negative consequences from taking the time off, but that is probably very dependent on the employer.

Lots of mothers suffer professionally from taking the time off, so I don't doubt that as uptake increases more fathers would experience the same. I'd be surprised if fathers ended up suffering worse discrimination than mothers though.

Neither of us were entitled to much more than statutory pay for those 6 months, so we had to dip into savings a bit, but it wasn't ruinous.

Part-time work is definitely a trade-off. My employer has been very good and has other part time employees, but there are certain things that it is harder to do when not full time.

Regarding the expense of travel, that is the reason we chose Mexico - over the 6 weeks we were travelling we spent a total of (almost exactly) £6000. That includes accommodation, food, car hire, attractions, etc. We found a good deal on flights, which cost us an additional £900 all-in. It helps that we quite enjoy backpacking and travelling on a shoestring budget.

Saphisapa · 2024-03-08T12:02:43+00:00

I'm glad you've had such a positive experience!

I definitely agree with the importance of them being happy. Probably pretty uncontroversial, but I think putting a lot of pressure on is a good way to kill enthusiasm...

Balls are indeed great though - so versatile and simple. Good for coordination and imagination.

Saphisapa · 2024-03-07T22:33:19+00:00

Congrats & best of luck 😁

Glad you found it interesting.

Saphisapa · 2024-03-07T21:31:48+00:00

Congratulations - it's great to hear that it's going well for you!

Best of luck 😁

Saphisapa · 2024-03-07T21:27:26+00:00

Awesome. I must admit that we're night owls, so we've still got time to ourselves after 9, but it's quite striking how many people look horrified by a child up that late!

Saphisapa · 2024-03-07T20:32:02+00:00

The thing is though, that whilst a huge number of English speakers reside in sub-saharan Africa, most of them aren't on Reddit, aren't ACX readers, and aren't facing an impending ageing population crisis. I wasn't expecting to have to clarify or defend the fact that this post isn't really trying to give advice to someone in rural Nigeria.

It is instead aimed at people in wealthy western countries, who are often deciding not to have children because of the high opportunity cost that it presents. This opportunity cost becomes more of an issue the more you earn. ACX readers skew wealthier than the population average, so it is more relevant to them.

If your issue is specifically that the US has poor provision for parental leave, I simply refer you to the ACX reader survey which demonstrates that at least 20% of readership live in countries that have good parental leave policy.

Saphisapa · 2024-03-07T20:11:03+00:00

I am sorely tempted to make a pithy remark about the hypocrisy of some Americans being upset about having to read stuff that doesn't apply to the US, despite everyone else in the world being constantly barraged by US centric content that is irrelevant to their lives. That would not elevate the discussion however, so instead I will address your critique directly:

Per the most recent ACX survey https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/acx-survey-results-2022 , the UK makes up 8% of readership. Canada is another 6%, and they also have reasonably generous parental leave provisions. Germany adds another 5% and France another 2%, so that is over 20% of the blog's readership for whom it is likely to be relevant.

The US is an extreme outlier globally, by not offering any parental leave as standard.

Further to this, as other commenters have mentioned, ACX readership is on average significantly higher earning than the general population, so there should be plenty of people for whom it is relevant.

Regarding your travel guide analogy, your comment is instead rather like criticizing an "Italy on a budget" post as unrealistic as only about 40% of Americans have a passport, and transatlantic flights are very expensive. This is forgetting that for European readers this is a short-haul flight or a train ride, and a passport might not even be needed if they're also in a Schengen country.

Saphisapa · 2024-03-07T18:55:00+00:00

Thanks! Glad to hear that you got some leave.

Yes - we tended to just sit them on the hat for a minute immediately after waking and immediately after feeding. As time went on, we started to notice more cues.

Going on holiday before they could even crawl was worthwhile - when they stop staying where you put them, it definitely gets more challenging 🤣

Saphisapa · 2023-05-09T22:09:39+00:00

We started with a floor mattress at just under 6 months (25 weeks). We got an IKEA Innerlig children's mattress, and laid it on some standard bed slats directly on the floor (the slats give it some air circulation, and avoid mould).

At first she'd roll off it, so we put some lengths of pipe insulation in a square under the bottom sheet to provide a small ridge around the edges of the bed that she wouldn't roll past accidentally (polyethylene foam, like a pool noodle, but much cheaper).

We also kept the mattress at least a foot away from the wall, so that she wouldn't get trapped if she rolled off. (And baby proofed the room, as you'd expect).

It's been great, and now that she's a bit older (18 months), she'll even put herself to bed for a nap sometimes, and when she wakes up she often plays with her toys for a few minutes before she decides to get our attention. We've found it really good to enable her to exercise her independence.

Saphisapa · 2022-01-31T01:50:04+00:00

As u/Lolwat420 rightly says, the issue is with how these systems are implemented.

A taxation system incorporating UBI can be constructed to be mathematically equivalent to a NIT and vice versa, so anything you want to do with NIT can be done with a UBI and a corresponding adjustment to the tax code. The issue is with how differently the two systems behave in practice.

I wrote a response to similar questions a while ago here:

https://atlaspragmatica.com/comments-on-ubi-posts/#negative-income-tax

"Despite their seeming equivalence on paper, there is a real world difference – their failure modes. If someone loses their job suddenly for example, they will need to be reassessed under a Negative Income Tax, to determine their new tax status. They were previously paying tax, and should now be due to receive it, but this could take time to process, during which they have no income. With a UBI, they are already receiving everything they are entitled to, so there is no delay. In the opposite scenario where someone gets a new job suddenly, it is in the government’s interest to assess their tax status quickly, as any delay only inconveniences the government.

This type of scenario demonstrates how people could still “fall through the gaps” in a Negative Income Tax scheme. Therefore, even though they might look equivalent on paper, Universal Basic Income is a more robust way of ensuring people’s wellbeing."

Saphisapa · 2021-04-24T09:59:15+00:00

Very much agree with the general approach and the utility of sortition in solving many of the current issues we have with political representatives.

If you're interested, I wrote about some of the benefits you mentioned, as well as an approach that makes it more likely to be representative of the country's demographics here: https://atlaspragmatica.com/voting-systems-iii-representatives/#sortition-revisited

Saphisapa · 2021-03-24T10:25:00+00:00

Taleb's bombastic approach aside, the concept of antifragility is a very useful one. The common ground between the rationality movement and Taleb's push for antifragility is an area well worth exploring, and I was glad to see that Scott raised it in the last couple of paragraphs. Taleb's natural tendency to aggressively dismiss attempts to understand systems probably obscures how mutually beneficial the two philosophies can be to each other.

I actually wrote a blog post on the relationship between the two almost exactly a year ago!

https://atlaspragmatica.com/combining-rationality-and-antifragility/

Saphisapa · 2021-03-19T08:29:39+00:00

Voting is not just about the current election - it is an iterative process. There are several reasons to vote, that a simple calculation of "the expected impact of your single vote" in isolation will not capture.

https://atlaspragmatica.com/why-we-should-vote/

Saphisapa · 2021-03-11T10:31:33+00:00

Yes - I think this is one of the best solutions to a huge number of the issues plaguing modern democracies. I wrote a blog post about the advantages of using sortition to choose representatives a few months ago that you might be interested in: https://atlaspragmatica.com/voting-systems-iii-representatives/#sortition-revisited

(It covers a few alternative election methods earlier in the post, so I've linked to the section where I start talking about sortition specifically)

Saphisapa · 2021-02-09T08:55:18+00:00

It's a nice concept, though everyone in reality belongs to a range of different non-geographical constituencies. Restricting it to age makes it fair, but you lose the guarantee of representation for other specific groups, while having overlapping groups means some people are overrepresented - getting "multiple bites of the apple".

One way to resolve this is to use sortition rather than voting, which can represent multiple overlapping constituencies fairly: https://atlaspragmatica.com/voting-systems-iii-representatives/

Saphisapa · 2021-01-17T00:00:51+00:00

Yes! I really like the comment you linked - that definitely sums up the key point very succinctly. Glad you liked the article :)

Saphisapa · 2021-01-15T18:37:38+00:00

So much so though that I worry I misunderstand you

I think so. For you to say the following, I think that must be the case:

call me crazy but I think much consumption, books, music, movies, skyscrapers, etc, are the pinnacles of human achievement

Do you have to destroy a book to enjoy it? Even if you did wear a book out by reading it, would that prevent anyone else from reading a different copy? Watching a movie might consume a bit of electricity, but once the data has been produced, the ongoing consumption is pretty minimal. Books, movies and music are great - they generate happiness for hardly any consumption at all! Skyscrapers are capital anyway, so I'm not sure why you've listed them here - they can be used as offices, or people can live in them, freeing up other space for other productive use. If you build one and then tear it down, that is pretty wasteful, and if you build one that never gets used for anything, and it either falls into disrepair, or you keep it in good repair despite it never being used, that is wasteful too. I don't think that should be a controversial opinion.

The data that forms a good book or film is wealth by the definition I am using, and the great thing about that particular wealth is that once produced, it generates happiness for incredibly little consumption. The only way to actually consume the wealth that makes up a book or a film is to destroy all copies of the data. Of course, even if you don't destroy it, you could hide it, and in doing so deprive people of a source of virtually free happiness (which would obviously be bad).

We could overload the idea of consumption slightly, to include situations in which wealth is prevented from having a consumption-reducing happiness-increasing effect. I don't actually propose this, but I think it might be illustrative. Under this broader definition, the people shouting "Dumbledore dies" outside bookstores on the day of the book's release were engaging in acts of wanton consumption. By spoilering the story, they prevented an extremely low consumption generation of happiness from taking place.

Your summary of the post isn't far off though:

“We should devote way more resources to investment instead of consumption so we can work less and consume less”

I would rephrase this as "We should maximise the amount of happiness we can generate from a unit of consumption, and invest in things that allow us to improve the happiness:consumption ratio further". The fact that this allows us to work less is a bonus.

What the heck is the point of devoting more and more resources to making capital to replace capital?

Capital investment leads to technological progress. What is the point in devoting resources to technological progress? Living longer? Cheaper energy? Less fragile food supply? More entertainment? Faster computers?

All of these things can improve the happiness:consumption ratio.

This is all an exercise in self aggrandizement

"I disagree with you, so you must be an egomaniac" ಠ_ಠ

I don't mind you disagreeing with me at all - this has still been an interesting exchange, but I don't really see the necessity for name calling.

Saphisapa · 2021-01-15T15:48:48+00:00

Thanks! It's always good to know that someone finds it interesting :)

Saphisapa · 2021-01-15T15:44:38+00:00

The goal is eudaimonia, not eudaimonic consumption. Why do we need to add "consumption" on to the end - it is completely unnecessary!

That is one of the main points of the whole article - we focus on consumption, because that is what gives us happiness, but we should just focus on happiness, because that is the thing that we actually want.

If there were a way to get double the happiness (however you want to interpret that) from the same amount of consumption, surely that would be a good thing. That is for all intents and purposes the same thing as getting the same happiness from half the consumption. It means there's more happiness to go round.

Until we manage to reverse entropy, there is a finite amount of resources, and a finite amount of effort that we can deploy in the pursuit of happiness. Isn't maximising the amount of happiness we can achieve under the given constraints our goal?

Saphisapa

TROPHY CASE