Are the following two examples examples of the kind of compression that the post is about?
ONE) Two meanings for Minimum Wage.
First, the government runs factories in which unskilled workers make stuff and get paid the legislated minimum. The government takes on all the workers who apply. That means that no-one need go hungry. If you cannot find a real job you can go to the government factory and get a minimum wage job. Since these factories are churning out generic stuff that isn’t much wanted, they make big losses. The losses are met from the welfare budget which comes from general taxation.
Second, the government merely forbids employment at less than a legislated minimum. There is no guarantee that work is available. Absent other welfare programs you may go hungry because of this prohibition. It costs tax payers nothing.
Call them MW1 and MW2. It is rare to see an increase in MW2 headlined as “Minimum wage made harsher.” even though the prohibition gets stricter. I suspect this is because “harsher” would not apply to an increase in MW1, and MW1 and MW2 are usually munged together in some kind of vague faith that jobs are always available at MW2.
TWO) “Government raises taxes” sometimes means that the government raises tax rates and sometimes means that tinkering with the tax system brings in extra revenue. To see the difference, think about Greece in 2011. Could the Greek government pay off its debts by raising taxes? Well, it could always raise the rates at which it levies taxes, but since the country isn’t rich enough to pay its debts that will probably just wreck the economy and reduce revenue.
The examples in Fallacies of Compression were 1)if a tree falls in a forest and there is nobody there to hear it, does it make a sound. 2)Are the trees leaves in the same place, it sure looks that way from the map? 3)You mean there are two Carols! They are nice examples, and serve the purpose of basic exposition well, exactly because they steer clear of politically fraught areas.
Nevertheless, I’m left wondering if I’ve grasped the point correctly. If I try to recognise a Fallacy of Compression in the area of political speech does my mind get killed? Do my two examples serve as 2nd level exposition, showing why we care about fallacies of composition?
If I try to recognise a Fallacy of Compression in the area of political speech does my mind get killed?
I think a large part of mindkilling is that in political discussions most people make extreme compressions—like compressing hundred ideas under one label. Also different people compress different things under the same label, and then they argue which one’s usage of the label was the right one.
If one hopes to talk about politics rationally, one must uncompress, uncompress, uncompress… but then they are usually no longer talking politics (as it is usually understood), but economics or sociology or something else.
Are the following two examples examples of the kind of compression that the post is about?
ONE) Two meanings for Minimum Wage.
First, the government runs factories in which unskilled workers make stuff and get paid the legislated minimum. The government takes on all the workers who apply. That means that no-one need go hungry. If you cannot find a real job you can go to the government factory and get a minimum wage job. Since these factories are churning out generic stuff that isn’t much wanted, they make big losses. The losses are met from the welfare budget which comes from general taxation.
Second, the government merely forbids employment at less than a legislated minimum. There is no guarantee that work is available. Absent other welfare programs you may go hungry because of this prohibition. It costs tax payers nothing.
Call them MW1 and MW2. It is rare to see an increase in MW2 headlined as “Minimum wage made harsher.” even though the prohibition gets stricter. I suspect this is because “harsher” would not apply to an increase in MW1, and MW1 and MW2 are usually munged together in some kind of vague faith that jobs are always available at MW2.
TWO) “Government raises taxes” sometimes means that the government raises tax rates and sometimes means that tinkering with the tax system brings in extra revenue. To see the difference, think about Greece in 2011. Could the Greek government pay off its debts by raising taxes? Well, it could always raise the rates at which it levies taxes, but since the country isn’t rich enough to pay its debts that will probably just wreck the economy and reduce revenue.
The examples in Fallacies of Compression were 1)if a tree falls in a forest and there is nobody there to hear it, does it make a sound. 2)Are the trees leaves in the same place, it sure looks that way from the map? 3)You mean there are two Carols! They are nice examples, and serve the purpose of basic exposition well, exactly because they steer clear of politically fraught areas.
Nevertheless, I’m left wondering if I’ve grasped the point correctly. If I try to recognise a Fallacy of Compression in the area of political speech does my mind get killed? Do my two examples serve as 2nd level exposition, showing why we care about fallacies of composition?
I think a large part of mindkilling is that in political discussions most people make extreme compressions—like compressing hundred ideas under one label. Also different people compress different things under the same label, and then they argue which one’s usage of the label was the right one.
If one hopes to talk about politics rationally, one must uncompress, uncompress, uncompress… but then they are usually no longer talking politics (as it is usually understood), but economics or sociology or something else.