Thats only true if you exclude all the white conservatives filled with anger about affirmative action and welfare going to non-whites and poor people.
Perhaps I wasn’t clear in my post (“personally” was meant to denote people I know in real life), or perhaps it will surprise you, but in my day to day life I don’t interact with any “white conservatives filled with anger about affirmative action and welfare going to non-whites and poor people”.
Its called relative deprivation, and it is a major factor in the modern conservative movement. Resentment among whites over the belief that ‘those people’, meaning immigrants and non-whites, benefit from welfare and government policies that the whites have to pay for or that a white loses out on (affirmative action means a white loses a job to a non-white, etc). Usually it is dog whistled but it is there.
Either way, you can’t claim only democrats get upset about ‘other people getting more’ because resentment about ‘those people getting more’ is a major factor in the modern right.
I accept your implication that the Democrats are more invested in fairness than the Republicans.
I think it’s a “major factor” in what you imagine about the modern right. I’m less confident that your imagination reflects reality. Do you have any cites you’d like to offer?
To clarify, I didn’t claim only democrats get upset. I said I didn’t personally know any white conservatives that were “filled with anger” about AA / welfare (and that the only people that I know that “obsess” about relative deprivation are Democrats). It’s a big country. I’m sure there are some angry Republicans out there. I know a lot that, if prodded, would probably express some mild annoyance about AA / welfare spending, but they’re not, in my personal experience, obsessing about it, or “filled with anger” over it.
I’ll offer you a cite in support of my point:
That’s interesting.
Cherry-picked result is cherry-picked, news at 11.
Such things tend to get highlighted when your situation is going badly. When things are going well, people have a tendency to credit skill and hard work. When things are going poorly, people tend to look for others to blame. In terms of income, we’ve reached a point where we are back up to Pre-Recession levels of household income, and the trend still seems to be upward (at somewhat reduced wage growth rates). The percentage of households who have been sitting on flat income for multiple years is declining. I don’t believe this factor will play as heavily in 2018 as it may have in 2016.
My guess is that this tax cut will will have some slight positive political benefit for Republicans, but nothing major. Assuming the IRS issues guidance and payroll adjusts their withholding formulas in Q1, my guess is that the initial pleasure at having a bit more money will fade by November 2018. I doubt we’ll see greater wage growth above and beyond what we’ve been getting recently; automation and job offshoring dampens wage inflation. The negative consequences of the additional deficit, whether through higher taxes or fewer public goods and services, probably also won’t factor in until the next decade. And Treasury yields rates remain pretty darn low to support the borrowing.
Yes, the tax cut is unpopular overall, but who doesn’t like a little extra cash in their wallet? I think you have to wait at least until late summer to really gauge true popularity.
The one thing I am curious about is whether House Republicans will have enough restraint to keep quiet about entitlement reform. If Paul Ryan starts spouting off, this really opens up the narrative of “They cut taxes for the rich, and now they’re going to take away your health care to pay for their giveaway!” I think McConnell has the right idea to keep quiet about entitlements, politically. Then again, Democrats suck at messaging.
That depends on whether the jobs lost in the aggregate were above or below the average wage. If the jobs lost were below the average wage overall, wage inflation would be artificially increased.
I’m reminded of the ultimatum game. Two people split a sum of money; the first decides how the money is divided and the second either accepts or rejects it. Very uneven distributions are likely to be rejected by the second player, even though rejecting it means they both get nothing.
Why is it that you defend white conservatives by describing the behavior of the ones you know, but you cite a Gallup poll to define the attitudes of Democrats?
Do you really know any Democrats personally who obsess about relative deprivation, or are you including people on this board who discuss the subject?
And while you say that Republicans aren’t obsessed or filled with anger over affirmative action and welfare, the cite you provided says that immigration is of above average importance to Republicans only. What’s the problem with immigration, apart from “they’re coming here to take the jobs away from Americans”; and how is that not part of the “relative deprivation” that Wesley Clark ascribed to modern conservatives?
I described the behavior / attitudes of Democrats I know too.
The only people I know in real life who have ever spoken to me about Gini coefficients or used the phrase “income inequality” are Democrats. My friends are pretty mild about it, but a couple of family members bring up the unfairness of it all often enough that I think they’re borderline-obsessive over the issue.
Conservative concerns over immigration aren’t entirely economic. Some are worried about terrorism, the drug trade, the rule of law, and violence. I suppose getting shot to death on a San Francisco pier is a form “relative deprivation” too, but I don’t think that’s what Wesley Clark was talking about.
A lot of terrorists coming over the border from Mexico, are there?
As for “the rule of law”, I’m not convinced. It’s illegal to hire an undocumented immigrant; but I don’t hear any conservatives pressing to investigate and prosecute employers who break that law.
I don’t know that I have ever heard anyone use Gini coefficient IRL, and if “income inequality” is used, it is usually because I am talking to one of my few liberal friends.
As far as complaints about welfare and ACA subsidies, and anytime someone is getting something that the speaker thinks they don’t deserve, I hear that all the time. I am surrounded by conservatives, it is hard to avoid. My clients are mostly conservative, my parents are very conservative, my barber is conservative, most of my acquaintances are conservative.
The complaint that there are people mooching off of welfare or disability, or shouldn’t deserve subsidized healthcare because they didn’t work hard enough to earn those things is very prevalent.
The way you say “shot to death” makes it sound as though the person who did the shooting was in some way attacking or otherwise threatening. That’s not really how it played out. It was a tragic event, and the fact that it was an undocumented immigrant that happened to pick up the gun that went off and ricocheted has nothing to do with immigration policy, even if he was a repeat offender. I find it quite offensive when people try to tie the tragic accidental death of a young girl to politics.
That wasn’t my claim. You asked:
I gave several non-economic concerns, among them, terrorism. Do you remember the case of the Uzbek immigrant that rented a truck from Home Depot and decided to run a bunch of people over in the name of ISIS / Allah? That’s one example of the sort of non-economic concerns conservatives have about poorly- or un-vetted immigrants. For short, you might call it one of “the problem[s] with immigration”.
I agree that it was a tragic event. I’m not sure how to properly express my deep skepticism that he picked up the gun and it just “went off”, but I recognize that it probably wasn’t a deliberate murder. I certainly wasn’t trying to offend you, it was just one recent example that came to mind when I was asked “What’s the problem with immigration”.
You said the tax bill is “opposed by 2/3 of those polled”. 55% is a lot less than two thirds, so we now have two polls that say you’re wrong, and none that say you’re right.
Meanwhile:
Energy suppliers like Washington’s Pepco. Baltimore Gas and Light, Pacific Power, Rocky Mountain Power, and Commonwealth Edison said they plan to give hundreds of thousands of customers a rate cut doe to the tax reform.
And:
The retail industry is about to get a big boost from Republican tax cuts, setting the sector up “exceptionally well” in the new year … Barclays raised its rating on Target and Lowe’s stocks on Friday, citing numerous benefits for the retail sector as a result of the tax overhaul.
“A potentially overlooked story that’s developing could be the amount of stimulus about to be released upon consumers by all U.S. corporate actions regarding employee pay/bonuses from the tax reform,” analyst Matthew McClintock wrote in a note to clients.
And:
Add Sinclair, the nation’s largest TV broadcaster, to the companies promising a $1,000 bonus to employees with the successful passage of the tax reform bill. The Hunt Valley, Md.-headquartered Sinclair Broadcast Group, which has 173 TV stations and reaches more than 38% of the U.S., said Friday that it will pay a special $1,000 bonus to its nearly 9,000 full-time and part-time employees, excluding senior level executives.
…
Other companies including Boeing, Comcast and Wells Fargo planned other investments. Boeing said it would invest $300 million in its business including $100 million in employee training and education and $100 million as part of its “workforce of the future” initiative.
…
Wells Fargo said it would boost its employees’ minimum wage to $15 per hour, up 11% from it’s current hourly rate of $13.50, once the law was passed.
So, lower bills, more spending money for consumers, higher wages and bonuses for poor and middle-class employees. I’m predicting these things will be pretty popular among voters. But maybe some Democrat will step forward to explain why these are bad things.
I’m a Rocky Mountain Power customer 
Just hope you’re not invested in real estate and related industries that do business in large states.
I will b very impressed if they do that.
Sinclair, the largest TV broadcaster in the country, with 173 stations, reaching more than 1/3 of Americans, is going to dump a whopping $9 million into the economy.
And last month, I dumped a few pennies in a Salvation Army bucket.
Chicken feed from Sinclair, and chicken feed from me. Pretty much the same, once you adjust for scale.
And in a $20 trillion economy, both are a drop in the bucket.