WUDC 2022 R9

Before I introduce the constructive and explain why this narrative is better for the individual and society, a point of framing that I think marginalises most of Opening Government’s case:

• I don’t think this debate is about opting out en masse from relationships, or even opting out to a great degree. I think on either side of the house, people are likely to settle down eventually; the question is when they do it, and if they do it in a manner that is optimised for them to derive all of the benefits from fulfilment that Sajid and Sourodip consider to be so important.

Where does this narrative likely apply?

I think this narrative likely applies, and is most salient in your early career right, when you’re starting out, i.e., when you’re entry-level or relatively early on in your career, i.e., middle-management at the absolute most. The reason why this is the case is because when you reach your middle age and are further along your career, there is tons of pressure and relatively low barrier pressure on you from external and countervailing influences to settle down:

• This looks like your internal biological clock telling you that it won’t last forever and you need to procreate at a certain point in order to do so.

• This looks like your family and your friends putting pressure on you, not to be an old maid or an old bachelor, and trying to set you up with different people in your community.

• This looks like the fact that you see other people in your community settling down and feel psychosocial pressure to do so.

• This looks like the fact that the vast majority of the world is religious, and religious texts exist in either world, that tell you your duty is to procreate.

What this means is that there are pressures that exist externally to the motion, that eventually push people towards having a family. And it also means, the pressure on government side is to form a family far earlier, and Opening Government 100% concedes this in their framing, when they say they amplify that narrative. What our narrative is most salient at doing, is telling you when you are in your early- or middle-career path, it is important to prioritise the success of your career, working hard in promoting it, in order to attain stability and derive fulfilment from whatever you like to do.

In other words, if you believe familial fulfilment is more accessible and somehow better, it will be accessible eventually on either side. The difference is–and the comparative in this debate is incredibly important–you will be in more of a position to enjoy that fulfilment when you have pressure on you to move towards prioritising your career, over prioritising family in the interim.

I have two extensive responses to Opening Government before I get into the constructive:

1. Firstly, I just contest it is hard to get fulfilment out of your career.

   1. Firstly, just empirically, there are a broad array of options for work and they are diversifying every year, as remote work becomes far more available, as provisions become more diversified, as there are more and more jobs that exist in society as we continue to advance in technology.

   2. Secondly, even if you don’t make it, success isn’t absolute in an absolute sense, i.e., you don’t make it to the top of the corporate hierarchy and become Michael Scott, there are tons of annoying middle managers who enjoy their jobs empirically right? Like there are so many Karens who love pushing papers on their desk, and enjoying every minute of that kind of work, so you don’t need to be at the top of the corporate hierarchy to derive success from that, they’re just wrong on that premise.

   3. But thirdly, when there is a pressure narrative to promote your career, you have incentives to opt into a career you like, right? Because if you are promoting your career day in, day out, and working very hard on it, you are likely to take in the advice from people that you better be promoting something that you enjoy, or at least attempt to enjoy to the best of your degree(?).

   4. But finally, this is dubiously comparative, right? Because insofar as you can’t derive pleasure from work because it fluctuates a lot and economically things aren’t stable, relationships often have highs, lows, pleasure in them is very subjective, and I’ll also prove in a minute they can often really suck if you’re poor, which is more likely on their side of the house.

2. Then they say, when people feel more pressure to work hard, they’ll optimise in such a way, that means you don’t get family benefits or something like this. This is really silly, because if you’re optimising for success our narrative is necessarily one more of a one on balance. Because if you feel pressure on promoting your career, it’s not just a narrative about working, it’s a pressure to succeed at work. This means you likely accrue a narrative of balance, because the narrative is oriented around work success, i.e., succeeding in your career, you are likely to internalise messaging like “breaks are important in order for you to be maximally productive,” and “it’s important for you to be doing something you enjoy in order to derive pleasure from that kind of thing.” Empirically, women opting into the labour force in a massive amount has just given more benefits in general, I have no idea why that's in their case.

Why do you make better choices on our side of the house? I’m going to start out with the benefits to the individual.

• Note on framing when you are young:

  • You have less dating experience because your preferences aren’t fully formed,

  • You have limited travel and exposure to different people meaning preferences aren’t entirely clear yet,

  • You have limited work experience,

  • You have trouble navigating specific career paths, and have a lack of information.

  • But finally, and this is the most critical, you have limited financial funds, right? Because you’re starting out, you’re working paycheck to paycheck. And this is critical because it means provisions for your significant other and family is very hard.

What changes on our side of the house at this critical juncture, it’s the most important impact in the debate, because these are the people who are the most salient in terms of impact.

• If they fail, then they’re fucked,

• If they succeed, then they’re great,

• If they achieve the median, then they’re better off.

1. Firstly, when you’re pressured to promote your career, you’re vastly more likely to consider long-term prioritisation far more. I.e., what additional education you need, like going to law school, opting for a master’s degree, where you want to live, or moving into an area with an industry that has jobs for your specific skill set. The comparative is you are likely to feel pressure to settle down faster. Or, if you already have a family, to focus less on optimising to be able to provide for them financially.

As an illustration, this looks like you’re an entry-level employee, you’re more likely to prioritise a promotion that comes with relocation over remaining in the small town you grew up in and swiping it multiple times on Tinder. Or prioritising a high-earning career, with a path to promotion, over dedicating that one extra night with your family.

It is a small trade-off, but it is a trade-off that insulates you from the worst economic risks significantly, and insulates you from a lot of problems.

2. Secondly, you’re likely to feel less pressured to settle down early. What the countervailing pressure on Gov does is you need to prioritise family over work. This ties you to one location far more, and you are far more stuck in one place, and far more likely to be pressured to settle down faster.

Now Opp might say, “ah, you have more time to explore your dating preferences.” Even if this is true, you are far better able to know what you truly like when you are older on one hand, so you preclude that. But secondly, insofar as you are financially stable, this is far more conducive to having a healthy relationship, even if you end up marrying the wrong person, or something like this. You are just far likely to be happier with them at the point in which you are financially stable, even if they’re not like 100% perfect to you or your soulmate or whatever.

3. But thirdly, the pressure incentivises you to actively seek out information about how to advance your career path, right? Because when you care a lot about this, and you feel pressured to promote yourself, you’re significantly more likely to accrue and attract what means toward economic stability in a variety of instances.

This means, rather than going on a fifth Tinder date, you instead look at and browse Linkedin for example. Instead of, you know, like doing these kinds of things.

4. But finally, when you do start a family, which you’re like to do on either side, you likely start it in a better financial position. I.e., you have sunk a good degree of time into advancing, accruing paychecks and savings, and also the information about how to save. Which means you are far more likely to:

   1. Firstly one, have more financial capital to provide for your children, this is critical.

   2. But have less stress at the opt-in point to the relationship because you’re more financially stable.

Before I impact that, closing:

(POI from CG): “The pressure to be able to provide for your family always exists. People who ignore this pressure on your side of the debate, would probably not be swayed by this pressure either.”

I don’t think they ignore that pressure, right? I think what this does is on the margins, make you more likely to prioritise your career in junctures when it is critical in your life, when you could be seduced easily by the siren song of your narrative on your side. And I want to make the comparative very very clear on weighing. In either world, people will settle down eventually. The question is whether or not they do it in a financially stable position. Our world sets you up for far more success in terms of being in a position to have a family in the first place, so we’re logically prior to all of Gov’s benefits. We also get less unhappy families, right? Because you’re more financially stable in general, right? Your family suffers less, even if it doesn’t exist in the first place.

Why is hustle culture good, if you believe this is the most important clash.

1. Firstly, you’re able to find more fulfilment. Interpersonal fulfilment is highly highly subjective. It’s incredibly unclear whether or not you can derive pleasure from it, many people don’t enjoy relationships, family can be incredibly stressful. The comparative is the diversity of careers, that gives people a lot of different options to opt in to, even if you don’t succeed.

   • But even if you believe family is more fulfilling, you're able to experience that fulfilment to a far greater degree when you insulate yourself from economic shocks, instability, far likely.

2. But finally, access to family is easier. Because a happy family is easier. Because you’re more likely to be able to provide for your family. It’s less of a drain on resources. It takes you down, right, on their side. And there’s less stress, because when you’re living paycheck to paycheck, it’s far harder to derive fulfilment from that kind of thing.

On the metric of fulfilment, we clearly win by proving you opt-in at a better point to family on our side of the house, but we prove for the people who need this narrative the most, it creates the impetus to the social change that is the most important. Incredibly proud to stand in Opening Opp.