But tutors and teachers and massage therapists and someone to help old grandma in her walker go shopping… those are all valuable services. Why would they need to be “subsidized”? Why can’t we as a society simply - choose - to swap to an economy that values service now that we are not making hammers and cars any more?
I think the sense of entitlement is a by-product of memory. For instance, I know what my parents were doing when they were my age. I know what status they enjoyed relative to their peers. I know what values they taught me. If I were shoveling shit for a living, I absolutely would feel like a failure because I would feel like that’s not what I’m supposed to be doing.
But in another decade or so, 20- and 30-somethings won’t even know what a “union job” was. The idea that at one time it was possible to own a nice house and a nice car without going to college will seem foreign to them.
Also, this kind of lecturing will eventually stop. Because people eventually die.
People blame the youth of America for their sense of entitlement. But you gotta be nuts to not understand where this is coming from.
Let’s be clear here. 1 percenters are in no position to whine but the increasing concentration of wealth is not there but in the top 1% of the top 1%. The rest of the top 1% are at best their knights and squires. Fun graphs here and here, and more discussion here.
The top 0.1% possesses as much wealth as the complete lower 90% does and the gulf is increasing. The halcyon days for the American middle class were the 80s and it has been downhill since with the top 0.1% and in particular the top 0.01% scooping it up. There really are fewer in the middle, with those without college degrees dropping out of the middle the most.
Bolding mine.
Richard Parker I appreciate that the causes are complex and multifactorial and that stump speech proposed solutions are unlikely to accomplish much. Still it is never great to have an entrenched and fairly hopeless growing underclass be they Black, Hispanic, or less educated mostly rural Whites.
Still, what to do about it?
Agree 100%. It is nothing but bum luck to have been born in 1980 instead of 1950. The kids didn’t change. The world economy changed.
I think you do your best at the margins. You try to redistribute as much wealth as you can without unduly hampering capitalism or personal liberty. You do what you can to empower shareholders and labor (which is not much). You try to make sure that even as wealth inequality grows, so does the standard of living of the poor and middle class. And you try to set America up for a level footing as best you can once a new equilibrium is reached.
The game theory militates against it, but in a perfect world our politicians would stop telling lies about the causes and consequences of all of this. I think Obama did a little bit better than his predecessors in being honest about it. And the GOP of Romney (though decidedly not Trump) did too. There is a space for being honest, especially if the Rust Belt ceases to be the critical swing territory for a presidential election.
Finland has been considering it. But I haven’t heard anything since I posted a thread about it in August.
I like experiments.
tl, dr:
But, if it hasn’t yet been cited, an amazing write-up about Appalachia and the poorest whites:
The next in the series is about the poorest black town. Equally charming, with the backdrop of the KKK.
Universal basic income with no minimum wage is growing on me as a means to somewhat mitigate income inequality. I like to think that if we all deal with negative externalities we may as well benefit from some of the positive externalities. Plus the universal basic income ought to spur productivity and it will just flow back to the 0.001% so they should advocate for it as well.
FWIW, some statisticians have determined that the increase in the white death rate is attributable almost entirely to women in the South. Assuming this is accurate, it only further complicates the task of determining root causes (and likely casts doubt on much of the speculation articulated thus far).
Why is gun loving, Jesus loving and anti-poverty in that lineup? Aren’t we all supposed to be against poverty?
Guns in a rural setting seems to be totally acceptable for most gun control folks.
Jesus loving seems like a swipe at religion, specifically Christianity. Can we be condescending to people of other religions too or just Christianity?
Anti-poverty? Is anyone pro-poverty? Or are you saying that these people hate the poor (despite the fact that they are fucking poor).
You seem to be making a lot of assumptions about people you don’t seem to know very well.
The war on drugs does very little to reduce the consumption of drugs but it does increase the number of non-violent offenders that work at slave wages in private prisons.
Oh really?
So what proposals or policies - have - republicans made that help the poor/minorities?
I think it’s interesting to note that Dseid’s cite says only 42% of the U.S. population cares much at all about the election. The largest group of voters, by far are independents. It makes me wonder if their is too much of a tendency towards excessive extrapolation when assessing the attitudes and feelings of people in these communities based upon political data.
Thank you for that link.
It is interesting but that link is related to the 45 to 54 year old cohort and the op was referencing an article about the younger cohorts with special reference to the 25 to 34 year old cohort. The article linked in the op demonstrates that it is both women and men in that cohort who are dying so much more, with drug overdoses increasing fivefold since 1999, particularly among those with less education. Their reanalysis of the data on the 45 to 54 year old cohort does not inform on that at all.
Now about that analysis you link to. Yes, it does document that the increase in overall death rate within the 45 to 54 year old White group is driven by White women in the South and that other White groups in that age cohort stay pretty flat … but the context remains this is a group not dying of cancer and heart disease as often and that both non-Whites and Whites across the rest of the Western world (France, Germany, the UK, Sweden, Australia …) in that age cohort had consequently experienced dramatically decreased mortality rates during that time period. Increased numbers of deaths from drug overdoses and suicide, specifically among those with less education, wiped out the gains for less educated 45 to 54 year old Whites who were not Southern women that other groups saw. And White Southern women 45 to 54 years old relatively began to drop like flies.
That Southern White less educated women 45 to 54 are being hit particularly hard is still though of note. And maybe the explanation for that does not fit as much with the “symptom of discontent” hypothesis I propose in the op. For that group I suspect it has more to do with this - opioid pain relievers (OPR) and benzodiazepines are prescribed much more readily in Southern states:
Add in that many docs seem to harbor subconscious stereotypes that make them less likely to prescribe opiates to Blacks than to Whites (also as noted in the article linked to in the op), and also less willing to prescribe them to men than to women, and that rural docs seem to be a bit more free with the scripts … well the specific increase in that specific cohort may not require discontent when implicit bias and regional medical practice variations suffice as explanations. Then again, divorce rate is higher in the South and while not just the South rural women are at greater risk for having extra stressors.
Furthering that discussion though would be better suited for a GD thread. Here I remain interested in how to address the well documented pessimism of the less educated White (and often rural) American cohort politically.
Even as I acknowledge that the pessimism is not completely unfounded. Even for those higher up the SES and educational ladder.
Mr. Nylock … “Independents” are the largest group with most of them actually leaners one way or the other. The political implication is, IMHO, tied in with the fact that historically the less educated White cohort does not vote in Presidential elections much. In 2012 their turn out was only 57%; in contrast college educated Whites turn out was 77%. But they still deliver many downticket districts, and don’t drop off as much in midterm years. Many call themselves independents. They have been voting GOP but are not happy with the mainstream of the party. Again, Trump and Cruz, IMHO appeal to the angry manifestation of their discontent, without offering any actual solutions. Sanders I think hopes to offer them an economic populism as a proposed solution to the root cause of the discontent.
Is it possible that there is a difference between not wanting to create government large welfare programs and hating the poor? Sure some of them hate the poor and think the poor are poor because they are morally flawed and lazy, sure some of them just don’t give a shit about the poor and wouldn’t really care if they all starved to death, but the vast majority of Republicans don’t feel that way.
One example of Republican ideas that seemed to have worked at least somewhat is the welfare reform of 1996. It limited welfare at a time of economic growth and gave us the Earned Income Tax Credit and we saw much larger reductions in unemployment among welfare recipients than we had seen in previous economic expansions. I think we can all agree that being employed (even at a shitty fast food job) is better than being on welfare. That doesn’t mean there weren’t some negative effects but on the whole it was probably good for the poor.
As a Democrat I don’t think we do anything to promote our cause if we simply write off the opposition as evil because they are NOT going away, they are going to be a part of our government for the rest of our lives.
That is very interesting.
I was disappointed in your Op, but this post pleases me.
In your OP you present a few data points and connect them in a way which views a population; which I am to assume is one you have little regular or meaningful contact with, in an unflattering light. Your assertion, although in a subtle way, really just blames them for the problems they are experiencing. When you say anger, when you say “disappointment at having nobody to look down upon” and the like it assumes a certain amount of moral inferiority or pettiness in personality. It diminishes the group you speak of. I feel as if your interpretation is guided mostly by confirmation bias, moral credential bias and actor-credtial bias instead of the rigorous critical thinking I have seen you apply to other subjects.
When I said poor health care could be a cause, you dismissed it out of hand, you asserted I was talking out of my backside. My mentioning of bad healthcare certainly encompasses what you describe above.
The way that lesser educated white people are spoken about today reminds me much of how inner city blacks were spoken of 25 years ago. I remember many years ago, when I worked as a construction estimator, driving through the inner city of Philadelphia. My boss commented on all the out of work blacks, they were almost beneath contempt to him, they were the scourge of society. I did not agree, I just saw a situation where they were a product of their environment just as we were, and probably no better or worse human beings than we were - at that particular time and place that was some pretty radical thinking. Today, the narrative has shifted, we are far more enlightened as a country about racial issues, however, in curing one type of unfairness do we just create another?
I certainly don’t know any solution to this; AFAIK there have always been advantaged and disadvantaged populations who are blamed for their disadvantages, it just changes from time to time. I strongly believe, however, that more data is better, and more people willing to set aside their initial preconceptions the better as well.
Let’s take some politician as an example:
In his short term interest he gets some drugs and takes them
In his midterm interests he runs for office on an anti drug ticket, also voting to spend money on drug enforcement that helps his buddys.
In his longer term interest he accepts bribes from large drug interests, as well as the pharma industry.
You can make money on both sides of the trade if you run the game.
If you do it you will still be described as “condescending.” Because “condescending” is the term of art epithet on the right for progressive thought. it’s the last socially acceptable meme they have to allign themselves with a working class value.
They want people to vote for them without thinking too much. Isn’t that condescending?
Danconia: You should read “The Shock Doctrine” by Naomi Klein. She explains the idea of gaining from crisis very well.
Do you have any evidence that actually happens?