?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
 
 
Violsvaladyblank on November 13th, 2016 07:57 pm (UTC)
The writer talks about the suffering and economic anxiety of a group of people she has defined as having a median income of $64,000.

I am not convinced.
Arlie Stephens: pic#6301806ertla on November 14th, 2016 04:12 pm (UTC)
From where I sit, there's a sharp divide in the US, between people near the 1% income boundary - who still have prospects for their economic situation to improve - and everyone else, who rationally expect to be less comfortable and less secure than their parents, with their children doing even worse than them. I'm above the boundary, financially, but it's not at all clear that my children (if I had any) would inherit this advantage - more likely they'd spend at least 10 years post-college unemployed or underemployed, and crippled with college debt, before working a succession of sweat shop jobs - unless they broke into the executive class themselves.

My father had a good solid union job, though in Canada. My sisters, also in Canada, are truly poor. Neither expects to ever be able to retire. Meanwhile my new CEO's sign-on bonus exceeds my likely total wealth at retirement - by a factor of about 2. And what was his first act? Lay-offs, of course.

I disagree with their idea of how to fix their problems, but I agree that they do have problems. And surely some component of the anti-intellectualism is the perception - false in the main, but true in some cases - is that a few members of the professional class still have improving prospects. (In the financial sense at least - working conditions have tanked, but only to a level normal for working class.)
Violsva: booksladyblank on November 14th, 2016 07:07 pm (UTC)
Yes, I was being more flippant than the situation deserved. But I'm not anywhere near the 1%. I have worked in warehouses and restaurants and offices and never made even half of her median income. I'm very tired of the assumption in most articles explaining the mentality of the white working class that all Democrats are rich professionals. It makes sense in the Harvard Business Review, where that is presumably her audience, but it's still completely wrong in general.

The average Clinton voter has a far lower income than the average Trump voter. They have much more financial insecurity and reason for anxiety. And yet they aren't blaming either the professional class or people of colour.
Arlie Stephensertla on November 15th, 2016 07:02 am (UTC)
Thank you. I needed to hear that.

I've been listening too much to the explanations coming from more-or-less the same people who were certain, 2 weeks ago, that Hilary was going to win. And they've got a nice picture of people working precarious jobs (or no job at all) in dead end towns where the one and only major industry has closed, and there's really nothing much left. But if they weren't right 2 weeks ago, what makes them likely to be right now?

Where are you finding the statistics on voter income, by the way? I'm finding this whole election cycle long on feelings and polemic, and really short on potentially verifiable data.
Violsva: booksladyblank on November 15th, 2016 07:03 pm (UTC)
FiveThirtyEight had stats on Trump's supporters during the primaries. CNN has exit polls. (Exit polls are of questionable accuracy, but they're what we've got.) And here's some studies on the most fervent of Trump's supporters.