The wealthy elites are shifting

Democrats are replacing Republicans as the preferred party of the very wealthy
http://www.vox.com/polyarchy/2016/6/3/11843780/democrats-wealthy-party

In 2012, something unusual happened. The wealthiest 4 percent of voting-age Americans, by a narrow plurality, supported a Democrat for president.

This hadn't happened since 1964. Before that, it hadn't happened since possibly the 1880s (scientific survey data for back then is, sadly, nonexistent).

So was 2012 a blip, like 1964? Or was 2012 the start of a phase shift, in which the Democrats replace the Republicans as the preferred party of the wealthiest Americans?

I'm pretty convinced that it does mark a phase shift. My strong hunch is that for the foreseeable future, the wealthiest Americans will prefer Democrats. But before getting to the future, let's start with the past.

Yeah not like the D's were the party of the poors like FDR & the Kennedys. ;-)

Makes sense.

Because it's the party that will maintain the status quo for now?

Like... duh.

People vote their self interest. You can bet if Bernie was the nominee, it wouldn't be like that.

Rocinante wrote:Because it's the party that will maintain the status quo for now?

Like... duh.

People vote their self interest. You can bet if Bernie was the nominee, it wouldn't be like that.

Did you read the article?

Turtleneck wrote:

Rocinante wrote:Because it's the party that will maintain the status quo for now?

Like... duh.

People vote their self interest. You can bet if Bernie was the nominee, it wouldn't be like that.

Did you read the article?

No. Do you want me to?

Rocinante wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:

Did you read the article?

No. Do you want me to?

The article makes a decent point about socio-economic and geographic shifts. Not just a purely instrumental argument.

Turtleneck wrote:

Rocinante wrote:

No. Do you want me to?

The article makes a decent point about socio-economic and geographic shifts. Not just a purely instrumental argument.

It's a thought piece not really supported by the data that it displays from what I can tell.

Rocinante wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:

The article makes a decent point about socio-economic and geographic shifts. Not just a purely instrumental argument.

It's a thought piece not really supported by the data that it displays from what I can tell.

It's not an academic paper. The author is not suggesting causation much less correlation.

But it is something interesting to think about. People are far less rational than we assume. Economizing political behavior makes understanding politics simple, or at least easier, but it leaves out a lot of important considerations.

I don't know. The more people try to talk about the nuance of voting behaviors, the more it looks to me that the the majority of the bell curve votes almost exclusively on economic interest. I know it doesn't show the whole picture, but it's a quick and dirty snapshot that's usually pretty accurate.

LooseGoose wrote:Yeah not like the D's were the party of the poors like FDR & the Kennedys. ;-)

FDR didn't have a lot of fans in his own family.

Joe Kennedy ran a political operation that Koch brothers emulate now but they don't have their children running for elective office.

There are a number of very wealthy Americans who know Trump a lot better because of their circles of friends in the financial sectors. They understand Trump truly believes everything can be re-negotiated to his term but you can't do that with existing Federal bond notes.

The chart below is built from American National Election Studies data. I use the top 4 percent because that the granularity that the data allows. A family income of $220,000 puts you in the top 4 percent in 2012.


I thought that dumb ass Dude said that 200k was middle class?

Bump

I think this data is relevant again

LooseGoose wrote:Yeah not like the D's were the party of the poors like FDR & the Kennedys. ;-)

Read Jane Mayer's Dark Money

Rocinante wrote:Because it's the party that will maintain the status quo for now?

Like... duh.

People vote their self interest. You can bet if Bernie was the nominee, it wouldn't be like that.

Do they, though? Why would a poor person ever vote Republican? I know people on food stamps who voted Trump. Were they voting their self interest, or are they just misguided?

Cameron wrote:

Rocinante wrote:Because it's the party that will maintain the status quo for now?

Like... duh.

People vote their self interest. You can bet if Bernie was the nominee, it wouldn't be like that.

Do they, though? Why would a poor person ever vote Republican? I know people on food stamps who voted Trump. Were they voting their self interest, or are they just misguided?

Desperate

DWags wrote:

Cameron wrote:

Do they, though? Why would a poor person ever vote Republican? I know people on food stamps who voted Trump. Were they voting their self interest, or are they just misguided?

Desperate

But were they voting their self interest? Desperate people do misguided things all the time.

Cameron wrote:

DWags wrote:

Desperate

But were they voting their self interest? Desperate people do misguided things all the time.

Not all poor people are only concerned with who will give them more free stuff, some actually are looking for an opportunity to better themselves.
Capitalist v Progressive.
Hillary is definitely the later, we'll see about Trump

I.B. Fine wrote:

Cameron wrote:

But were they voting their self interest? Desperate people do misguided things all the time.

Not all poor people are only concerned with who will give them more free stuff, some actually are looking for an opportunity to better themselves.
Capitalist v Progressive.
Hillary is definitely the later, we'll see about Trump

What sort of opportunities to better themselves? Anyone concerned with education ought not to have voted for Trump either.

Cameron wrote:

I.B. Fine wrote:
Not all poor people are only concerned with who will give them more free stuff, some actually are looking for an opportunity to better themselves.
Capitalist v Progressive.
Hillary is definitely the later, we'll see about Trump

What sort of opportunities to better themselves? Anyone concerned with education ought not to have voted for Trump either.

IF, and I repeat, IF Trump makes good on any of his promises to reduce illegal immigrants (Supply/Demand of cheap labor) and bring back some manufacturing jobs (Supply/Demand for labor) and lower business taxes/regulations incentivizing new businesses, more people on the bottom end of the pay scale should have opportunity to improve their lot in life with better paying jobs.
Hillary just promised more hand outs.
My guess is some of those people rolled the dice on the former rather than giving in to the later.

I.B. Fine wrote:

Cameron wrote:
What sort of opportunities to better themselves? Anyone concerned with education ought not to have voted for Trump either.

IF, and I repeat, IF Trump makes good on any of his promises to reduce illegal immigrants (Supply/Demand of cheap labor) and bring back some manufacturing jobs (Supply/Demand for labor) and lower business taxes/regulations incentivizing new businesses, more people on the bottom end of the pay scale should have opportunity to improve their lot in life with better paying jobs.
Hillary just promised more hand outs.
My guess is some of those people rolled the dice on the former rather than giving in to the later.

Yep, lets see the manufacturing jobs now.  Many people I know did vote on that issue.  Now some are saying they hope he can deliver.  I think many peoplel can over look racism and misogyny in a person if it means they can feed their family and keep a roof over their head.  It's really not that hard of a choice when you figure it out.  I don't think these voters were pissed off by some intellectual snobs who came into their towns and called them racists as was suggested by some here.  I think they were voting for a man who promised he'd stop manufacturing jobs from leaving.  There are a cople of real big case studies coming up immediately in this.  Lets see if he can deliver.

DWags wrote:

I.B. Fine wrote:

IF, and I repeat, IF Trump makes good on any of his promises to reduce illegal immigrants (Supply/Demand of cheap labor) and bring back some manufacturing jobs (Supply/Demand for labor) and lower business taxes/regulations incentivizing new businesses, more people on the bottom end of the pay scale should have opportunity to improve their lot in life with better paying jobs.
Hillary just promised more hand outs.
My guess is some of those people rolled the dice on the former rather than giving in to the later.

Yep, lets see the manufacturing jobs now.  Many people I know did vote on that issue.  Now some are saying they hope he can deliver.  I think many peoplel can over look racism and misogyny in a person if it means they can feed their family and keep a roof over their head.  It's really not that hard of a choice when you figure it out.  I don't think these voters were pissed off by some intellectual snobs who came into their towns and called them racists as was suggested by some here.  I think they were voting for a man who promised he'd stop manufacturing jobs from leaving.  There are a cople of real big case studies coming up immediately in this.  Lets see if he can deliver.

Even if he is able to do that (a massive massive if.) Then the question would remain if it is even a good thing for those people, let alone the rest of us. Answer- probably not.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

DWags wrote:


Yep, lets see the manufacturing jobs now.  Many people I know did vote on that issue.  Now some are saying they hope he can deliver.  I think many peoplel can over look racism and misogyny in a person if it means they can feed their family and keep a roof over their head.  It's really not that hard of a choice when you figure it out.  I don't think these voters were pissed off by some intellectual snobs who came into their towns and called them racists as was suggested by some here.  I think they were voting for a man who promised he'd stop manufacturing jobs from leaving.  There are a cople of real big case studies coming up immediately in this.  Lets see if he can deliver.

Even if he is able to do that (a massive massive if.) Then the question would remain if it is even a good thing for those people, let alone the rest of us. Answer- probably not.

Is what a good thing? to allow them to get off the government teat and earn self respect by being able to pay their own way?
Am I missing something?

I.B. Fine wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Even if he is able to do that (a massive massive if.) Then the question would remain if it is even a good thing for those people, let alone the rest of us. Answer- probably not.

Is what a good thing? to allow them to get off the government teat and earn self respect by being able to pay their own way?
Am I missing something?

Yeah, seems like it.

It's a simplistic example, but let me break it down for you. Let's say that right now a car manufactured with cheaper labor in Mexico and parts produced in Mexico costs 20,000. But then let's say that those cars are produced in the US and the parts are produced in the US and as a result the car costs 25,000. How much more is the person making with their manufacturing job than what their alternatives were before? Let's say their wages go up from 12/hour to 18/hour. 6x2080 = about an extra $12,500 per year. So great, they can easily afford that car that is now produced in the US. But wait... their phone bill went up. So did their cable. See, it isn't just car jobs, it's those people you hate calling in India too. If those are in the US now too because other people need jobs then those costs go up too. This would apply to any number of other goods too that I won't go point by point on, but think of anything that is manufactured in another country... which is, like, everything. So, you see, this may or may not be a good thing for them.

Now... that's not even considering the rest of us whose wages don't go up but we're still subjected to the more expensive goods. We're just straight fucked wishing that people would have invested in their education (or someone else did for them I dunno whatever) and continued further advancing our economy beyond a manufacturing economy and found jobs in other places rather than insisting on dragging it backwards.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

I.B. Fine wrote:
Is what a good thing? to allow them to get off the government teat and earn self respect by being able to pay their own way?
Am I missing something?

Yeah, seems like it.

It's a simplistic example, but let me break it down for you. Let's say that right now a car manufactured with cheaper labor in Mexico and parts produced in Mexico costs 20,000. But then let's say that those cars are produced in the US and the parts are produced in the US and as a result the car costs 25,000. How much more is the person making with their manufacturing job than what their alternatives were before? Let's say their wages go up from 12/hour to 18/hour. 6x2080 = about an extra $12,500 per year. So great, they can easily afford that car that is now produced in the US. But wait... their phone bill went up. So did their cable. See, it isn't just car jobs, it's those people you hate calling in India too. If those are in the US now too because other people need jobs then those costs go up too. This would apply to any number of other goods too that I won't go point by point on, but think of anything that is manufactured in another country... which is, like, everything. So, you see, this may or may not be a good thing for them.

Now... that's not even considering the rest of us whose wages don't go up but we're still subjected to the more expensive goods. We're just straight fucked wishing that people would have invested in their education (or someone else did for them I dunno whatever) and continued further advancing our economy beyond a manufacturing economy and found jobs in other places rather than insisting on dragging it backwards.

OK, I see your point, if Trump institutes protectionist measures, that would not be good, it also would make US products less competitive internationally, another bad thing.
I'm hoping he works on the tax/regulation angle to make the US a more desirable place to do business vs protectionism which will tank the economy worse.

I.B. Fine wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Yeah, seems like it.

It's a simplistic example, but let me break it down for you. Let's say that right now a car manufactured with cheaper labor in Mexico and parts produced in Mexico costs 20,000. But then let's say that those cars are produced in the US and the parts are produced in the US and as a result the car costs 25,000. How much more is the person making with their manufacturing job than what their alternatives were before? Let's say their wages go up from 12/hour to 18/hour. 6x2080 = about an extra $12,500 per year. So great, they can easily afford that car that is now produced in the US. But wait... their phone bill went up. So did their cable. See, it isn't just car jobs, it's those people you hate calling in India too. If those are in the US now too because other people need jobs then those costs go up too. This would apply to any number of other goods too that I won't go point by point on, but think of anything that is manufactured in another country... which is, like, everything. So, you see, this may or may not be a good thing for them.

Now... that's not even considering the rest of us whose wages don't go up but we're still subjected to the more expensive goods. We're just straight fucked wishing that people would have invested in their education (or someone else did for them I dunno whatever) and continued further advancing our economy beyond a manufacturing economy and found jobs in other places rather than insisting on dragging it backwards.

OK, I see your point, if Trump institutes protectionist measures, that would not be good, it also would make US products less competitive internationally, another bad thing.
I'm hoping he works on the tax/regulation angle to make the US a more desirable place to do business vs protectionism which will tank the economy worse.

We'll see. It may just work as a temporary short term stopgap. In the long run though manufacturing jobs in the United States are not the future. I look at it this way... if your job gets replaced by a robot then you need to learn how to maintain and fix that robot, not try to hinder technological progress in the name of continuing to have your low wage low skill job. It's a losing fight in the long run.

Which touches on another thing- Was your job lost to international low wage labor or to technological progress that makes the job unnecessary? If it's the latter, then the job never went anywhere, it just got eliminated.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

I.B. Fine wrote:
OK, I see your point, if Trump institutes protectionist measures, that would not be good, it also would make US products less competitive internationally, another bad thing.
I'm hoping he works on the tax/regulation angle to make the US a more desirable place to do business vs protectionism which will tank the economy worse.

We'll see. It may just work as a temporary short term stopgap. In the long run though manufacturing jobs in the United States are not the future. I look at it this way... if your job gets replaced by a robot then you need to learn how to maintain and fix that robot, not try to hinder technological progress in the name of continuing to have your low wage low skill job. It's a losing fight in the long run.

Which touches on another thing- Was your job lost to international low wage labor or to technological progress that makes the job unnecessary? If it's the latter, then the job never went anywhere, it just got eliminated.

Somebody has to be around to fix the robots that maintain the robots that make the robots that make shit for me!

Josh KraushaarVerified account ‏@HotlineJosh
Sign of how badly Clinton underperformed w suburbanites: She only won 51.7% in Oakland Co, MI -- worse than Obama in '12.

In other awful economy news, US Housing starts went over the 1M mark in October. The highest number since 1982.

Damn Obama