I'm trying to understand why working class lower middle class people vote against their self interest.

Some theories out there. Still searching. Why do people vote against their self interest

Some of my neighbors are public school teachers who bragged about voting for GOP candidates including governor, state senate and house candidates.

A couple of them are now complaining because a couple of their children are finishing up their student teaching and think the wages plus the healthcare costs cut their real take home to surprisingly lower take home and low charter school pay is compared to publics.

Told them they are seeing what they have voted for the last 12-16 years.

Attached is a link showing how Trump connected with white voters with HS education or less. He even did better amng Asian and Hispanic voters

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/23/upshot/how-the-obama-coalition-crumbled-leaving-an-opening-for-trump.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

GRR Spartan wrote:Some of my neighbors are public school teachers who bragged about voting for GOP candidates including governor, state senate and house candidates.

A couple of them are now complaining because a couple of their children are finishing up their student teaching and think the wages plus the healthcare costs cut their real take home to surprisingly lower take home and low charter school pay is compared to publics.

Told them they are seeing what they have voted for the last 12-16 years.

Attached is a link showing how Trump connected with white voters with HS education or less. He even did better amng Asian and Hispanic voters

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/23/upshot/how-the-obama-coalition-crumbled-leaving-an-opening-for-trump.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

I can't say I'm surprised. I know a shit ton of teachers who have done the same, now they're freaking out about what's going to happen to their pensions, their salaries and their health care. I'm assuming most had a spouse who was working so it was a secondary income and the health the spouse enjoyed. Now that it's getting squeezed I'm wondering who they'll blame it on. Wait till teach for America comes to their town, the hilarity will ensue. Talk about mass panic and disgust.

The answer is obvious, they're stupid.

Why do you think 12 or so months before an election politicians start making a big deal out of stupid shit like transgendered bathrooms or abortion or cops or whatever?

It's to whip people into a frenzy about stuff that doesn't really effect their life but draws their votes against their own self interest. Then, after they've already voted, they realize they never really cared about which bathroom people choose to poop in and forgot about the things that actually matter to them.

LooseGoose wrote:The answer is obvious, they're stupid.

Are you putting words into your own mouth?

Those voters bought what Trump was saying in his stump speeches.

If you and others want to believe those voters believed "Draning the swamp" would mean naming business insiders who were the people Trump was blaming for economic woes

Why Do White Working-Class People Vote Against Their Interests? They Don’t.

LooseGoose wrote:

Why Do White Working-Class People Vote Against Their Interests? They Don’t.

Sorry Goose, I have cop friends and teacher friends who have put a party in power that will take away Pensions and cut salaries for both those positions. All the stories in the world won't relieve the angst those people are expressing right now on who've they elected. When Devos put is Pension paper out a week after the election, it spoke volumes. What I would never do is tell that to them to their face, but I'm blown away by who they thought they were voting on based on building a fence in Mexico and stemming immigrants from Syria. At least we have those fences and quotas coming. As far as yoru pensions, welcome to working into your 70's. Poor planing on their part I guess.

LooseGoose wrote:

Why Do White Working-Class People Vote Against Their Interests? They Don’t.

From the article: The collapse of the industrial heartland resulted from a choice about whether we would reshape our economic models to serve workers and communities over profits—or continue to serve corporate interests that painted the global movement of capital as inevitable. The right blamed unions and regulation. The Democrats tried to explain the collapse as a weather phenomenon that we all needed to adjust to. Efforts to reshape the economy were marginalized and defeated by both parties; business and organized labor each supported the collapse of the city of Youngstown.

The impact of this betrayal on white working-class people was a universal distrust and dislike for institutions—none of which were able to defend their livelihoods or their futures.


So, which "institution" do they trust? Because Jimmy Carter in 76 wouldn't give Youngstown a federal loan, they vote republican legislatures and govenors in in Michigan who are against Public Education and against Pensions of first responders and teachers? That doesn't make much sense.

DWags wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

Why Do White Working-Class People Vote Against Their Interests? They Don’t.

From the article: The collapse of the industrial heartland resulted from a choice about whether we would reshape our economic models to serve workers and communities over profits—or continue to serve corporate interests that painted the global movement of capital as inevitable. The right blamed unions and regulation. The Democrats tried to explain the collapse as a weather phenomenon that we all needed to adjust to. Efforts to reshape the economy were marginalized and defeated by both parties; business and organized labor each supported the collapse of the city of Youngstown.

The impact of this betrayal on white working-class people was a universal distrust and dislike for institutions—none of which were able to defend their livelihoods or their futures.


So, which "institution" do they trust? Because Jimmy Carter in 76 wouldn't give Youngstown a federal loan, they vote republican legislatures and govenors in in Michigan who are against Public Education and against Pensions of first responders and teachers? That doesn't make much sense.

I read a better article on this, just couldn't find it this morning. I'll look again.

The basic gist was that they don't want Presidents promising to put them out of work as Obama and Hills did, they want Presidents to give them hope that they can go back to work and make a decent living like they once did.

There's nothing evil in that hope, you may disagree with the method they're using to make it reality but try to understand the reasoning.

LooseGoose wrote:

DWags wrote:


From the article: The collapse of the industrial heartland resulted from a choice about whether we would reshape our economic models to serve workers and communities over profits—or continue to serve corporate interests that painted the global movement of capital as inevitable. The right blamed unions and regulation. The Democrats tried to explain the collapse as a weather phenomenon that we all needed to adjust to. Efforts to reshape the economy were marginalized and defeated by both parties; business and organized labor each supported the collapse of the city of Youngstown.

The impact of this betrayal on white working-class people was a universal distrust and dislike for institutions—none of which were able to defend their livelihoods or their futures.


So, which "institution" do they trust? Because Jimmy Carter in 76 wouldn't give Youngstown a federal loan, they vote republican legislatures and govenors in in Michigan who are against Public Education and against Pensions of first responders and teachers? That doesn't make much sense.

I read a better article on this, just couldn't find it this morning. I'll look again.

The basic gist was that they don't want Presidents promising to put them out of work as Obama and Hills did, they want Presidents to give them hope that they can go back to work and make a decent living like they once did.

There's nothing evil in that hope, you may disagree with the method they're using to make it reality but try to understand the reasoning.

I would say to them (and I never will) but you didn't know that the party your vote for wants yo reduce Pensions and get rid of public education? (not tax dollars by the way, just get rid of public education- give the money to someone else)

DWags wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

I read a better article on this, just couldn't find it this morning. I'll look again.

The basic gist was that they don't want Presidents promising to put them out of work as Obama and Hills did, they want Presidents to give them hope that they can go back to work and make a decent living like they once did.

There's nothing evil in that hope, you may disagree with the method they're using to make it reality but try to understand the reasoning.

I would say to them (and I never will) but you didn't know that the party your vote for wants yo reduce Pensions and get rid of public education? (not tax dollars by the way, just get rid of public education- give the money to someone else)

Public education is FUBAR in this country. We must try something. Repeatedly doing the same thing that's a failure is insanity.

Dems offered no solutions except criticism and finger pointing. And that's why they are historically weak on all levels of government.

Relying on politicians to solve your problems is a recipe for disaster. They can scarcely provide basic safety from crime and infrastructure and you think they're going to take care of your lifelong health care and retirement planning without making a total clusterfuck of it?
The more they promise = the more they lie.

More personal responsibilty stuff.

IB what to you do for paychecks and if retired what did you do?

I know people who didn't go crazy with a 2nd wife/2nd house/2nd set of kids. Bought the home within means and are working at 64 and probably will until they are close to 70.
They were with a company for 20+ years and saw their paycheck shrink because of healthcare participation/copays. The company gets sold, they are over 50 and then healthcare disaster hit. Stroke, heart attack, cancer. It happens after their job is elmnated and they are working for $12 / hr instead of $20.

They are candidates for healthcare bankruptcy but its easy for corporations, not so for individuals. More of the personal responsibily bullshit. We need to treat corporations as people until it comes to bankruptcy.

Black people voted for Obama and they are worse off economically after 8 years.

People vote against self interests all the time. Having their party or person in charge is more important than actually improving lives. Government not working for its citizens doesn't matter as long as your party or guy is in control.

The electorate doesn't knowingly vote against their self-interest. They do it either because they are uninformed, misinformed to varying degrees, or certain plank issues supported by one party or the other are most important to them.

Goose - That article was an interesting read but I think the author still missed the mark. Republicans blamed unions and regulations yes, Democrats blame the shifting global economy and say this is a natural transition to a service economy. Both stories are misleading and only offer part of the equation.

The truth is that those cozy industrial jobs are NEVER coming back. Why they left is a complex story. What follows is a grossly simplified version of what happened:

The lowest skill jobs disappeared thanks to technological advancements and trade agreements that enabled globalization. The next waves of jobs were lost to increased globalization and automation, which has continued to erode the need for low skilled labor in more and more industries over time.

Automation is becoming one of the strongest driving forces now that the globalized economy is in a relatively mature state.

Meijer for example recently built an automated warehouse that employs ~70 people. A traditional warehouse with similar throughput in our network employs around 400 people. Now we don't close the old warehouses immediately but as we shift to more automated warehouses over time, our distribution network will employ 25% as many people when all is said and done.

Technology has also enabled service jobs to shift overseas, for example customer support/tech support and a million other tasks you can pay someone in India/wherever to do for a fraction of the cost of an American. Hospitals even pay X-ray technicians in India to analyze X-rays over night.

The path towards prosperity from an economic perspective is being honest with ourselves about the future, and preparing Americans to be the best workers possible for the future economy. For those that are not capable of learning advanced technical knowledge/skills, we need to support them with investments in infrastructure and the vast amounts of skilled labor required, invest in incentives for trade skill careers, and invest in our renewable energy industry.

Again, I realize that is an oversimplified explanation and I don't have all of the answers but can you imagine trying to explain all of that and more to the average voter? It's far easier and probably more effective to just make absurd generalizations and promises on the campaign trail that sound good to the masses.

The working class has gone on a pattern of voting in republicans, and then voting in democrats.

Jobs are leaving over seas or because of automation and there's no real discussion about how to address the reduction of jobs. Those jobs are not coming back and it's traumatizing.

The other side of it is why do people like the police and the teachers that are mentioned in this thread vote for politicians that will cut their benefits?

Religious beliefs?

Woefully uninformed?

I think a lot of people vote out of fear/anger. They want the politician that is going to make them feel safe and are going to do a good job taking care of the 'bad guys' they see on the news all of the time.

steveschneider wrote:The working class has gone on a pattern of voting in republicans, and then voting in democrats.

Jobs are leaving over seas or because of automation and there's no real discussion about how to address the reduction of jobs. Those jobs are not coming back and it's traumatizing.

The other side of it is why do people like the police and the teachers that are mentioned in this thread vote for politicians that will cut their benefits?

Religious beliefs?

Woefully uninformed?

I think a lot of people vote out of fear/anger. They want the politician that is going to make them feel safe and are going to do a good job taking care of the 'bad guys' they see on the news all of the time.

I know teachers who for whatever reason think their job is the "second job" in a two job family. And, even though they'll use the teachers benefits, the husband has convinced the wife (not being sexist-I only know those families not the other way around) that her job is for added income. When benefits are cut they get pissed at the education field and union for doing a lousy job and it's reinforced at home by the husband who doesn't realize how good he had it with the bennies. So, the spouse is pissed at her weak union and echos the husbands vote. I guess it's non informed.

As far as cops, while Dens often want them to have good pensions and salaries, they're looked at as soft on crime because they're the party that is against marijuana laws and unreasonable jail sentences. Arresting weed dealers in a city and putting them in jail is an industry. It keeps jobs. So the cops will vote for the "law and order party" who want their benefits cut and their pay cut.

Just my opinion.

I choose not to live in an alternate reality where everyone makes informed decisions rather than getting fired up by 30 second sound bytes.

I work with a lot of fellow reps who have had a nice life as a 1099 worker with his wife's MESSA benefits. Her salary has paid for great vacations and their kid's college educations.

It wasn't until the last 2 years where they started to wake up to the fact their deductibles jumped and copay calculations started including prescription into the total deductiible formula.

Its just now those spouses and others are realizing what they voted for as a philisophical statement are actually affecting their lives.

DWags wrote:

steveschneider wrote:The working class has gone on a pattern of voting in republicans, and then voting in democrats.

Jobs are leaving over seas or because of automation and there's no real discussion about how to address the reduction of jobs. Those jobs are not coming back and it's traumatizing.

The other side of it is why do people like the police and the teachers that are mentioned in this thread vote for politicians that will cut their benefits?

Religious beliefs?

Woefully uninformed?

I think a lot of people vote out of fear/anger. They want the politician that is going to make them feel safe and are going to do a good job taking care of the 'bad guys' they see on the news all of the time.

I know teachers who for whatever reason think their job is the "second job" in a two job family. And, even though they'll use the teachers benefits, the husband has convinced the wife (not being sexist-I only know those families not the other way around) that her job is for added income. When benefits are cut they get pissed at the education field and union for doing a lousy job and it's reinforced at home by the husband who doesn't realize how good he had it with the bennies. So, the spouse is pissed at her weak union and echos the husbands vote. I guess it's non informed.

As far as cops, while Dens often want them to have good pensions and salaries, they're looked at as soft on crime because they're the party that is against marijuana laws and unreasonable jail sentences. Arresting weed dealers in a city and putting them in jail is an industry. It keeps jobs. So the cops will vote for the "law and order party" who want their benefits cut and their pay cut.

Just my opinion.

Most cops I've known are dyed in wool republicans.

And what about all the people on Obamacare that voted for Trump?

Or the people on medicare, or all the people contributing to social security?

The gut punch is coming to the working class and when they figure out Trump can't bring those jobs back then what are they going to do?

GRR Spartan wrote:I choose not to live in an alternate reality where everyone makes informed decisions rather than getting fired up by 30 second sound bytes.

I work with a lot of fellow reps who have had a nice life as a 1099 worker with his wife's MESSA benefits. Her salary has paid for great vacations and their kid's college educations.

It wasn't until the last 2 years where they started to wake up to the fact their deductibles jumped and copay calculations started including prescription into the total deductiible formula.

Its just now those spouses and others are realizing what they voted for as a philisophical statement are actually affecting their lives.

Synopsis: The buzzards have come home to roost and reality sucks.

Those benefits were fantasy from the beginning using pie in the sky actuarial numbers, they had a nice ride, be happy with that.
I feel for people that are retired and their representation lied about their pensions being fully funded, but do you want to make up the difference?
Do you even know which political party to be pissed at? The one that over promises or the one that under delivers? and which is which?

Speaking to the original question, we tend to go too far in assuming voters are rational. We should not try to understand voting behavior the way economists try to understand consumer behavior.

Economists like to assume people are perfectly rational. This makes theorizing about consumer behavior much easier. We tend to do the same with voting behavior. First, nobody ever possesses or fully understands the necessary information to be perfectly rational. You can only make a perfectly rational decision if you possess or fully understand perfect information. Second, and this is especially true with voting, there is a flood of additional values - cultural and ideational come to mind - that intercept what might otherwise be the rational decision. In other words, the the idea that voters are rational is a myth.

This brings the conversation back to points made by other posters. We need to make a distinction between those who knowingly vote against their interests and those who unknowingly do so. The former is likely to be rare, while the latter is quite prevalent. There was an interesting article in The Atlantic two days ago that spoke to the decision-making abilities of people, and why they seem to make less than optimal choices. It speaks to the idea that people do not understand tradeoffs and will make decisions that run counter to their interests.

Governing is often a cause-and-effect business. Give workers a tax break on retirement accounts? More people save for life after the working world. Offer a rebate for old cars? Drivers scrap their gas-guzzling Explorers in favor of sensible Corollas, and average fuel efficiency goes up.

It’s easy to sell something to voters when the costs and benefits are immediately obvious. But that’s not how most policies work. Many look downright terrible in the beginning—what, pay more taxes?—and deliver a payout only if people collectively change their future behavior. Take a carbon tax: Industry would pay more to produce energy, making stuff more expensive, but the price pressure might prompt an eventual shift to alternative fuels, which could deliver an overall benefit to society.

Voters, it turns out, have a really hard time with this.

New research suggests people distrust policies that inflict short-term pain but benefit everyone by encouraging a shift in behavior. They prefer alternatives that seem better at first, but merely reinforce bad decisions. This isn’t as simple as the marshmallow test—have one now, or have two 10 minutes from now—that demonstrates the average person’s preference for immediate rewards. Rather, it seems people have difficulty predicting a law’s “equilibrium effects,” or how it will change future behavior for the better. That, or they don’t trust it will actually work.

There is a good chance that Trump's economic policies, if they ever see the light of day, will gravitate between having no impact and being harmful. I personally do not see them gravitating toward helping the economy or the working class he has pledged to help. For example, I am concerned his preference for trade barriers will damage American exports and drive up prices at home, and that his tax plan is too expensive and will shift the burden to working and middle class families. This means I agree that many people voted for policies that run counter to their interests. But I do not think they knowingly did so, nor do I think it can be fully explained by a scientific study on decision-making.

This election was a referendum on globalization. This became obvious the moment Trump and Sanders emerged as serious contenders. The press was slow to pick up on this, but it was being written about in academic circles as early as August 2015. Their overlapping message on the economics of globalization, and success among working and middle class voters, made this clear. While Sanders opposed the global economy on the basis of economic inequality and environmental injustice, and Trump because it undermines American power, they were both enemies of the economics of globalization.

Globalization brings with it major change. Not only only does it disrupt economies for better or worse, but it also brings with it urbanization and cosmopolitanism. Trump was able to capitalize on the full effect of globalization. Some voters - especially with Obama still pushing the TPP - could not bring themselves to vote for Clinton. To them, voting for Clinton was voting against their interests. They are not interested in adapting to the new economy. They are interested in finding a way to rediscover the old economy. Others - maybe also worried about the economy - see a changing America and they do not like that they see. Trump brings an angry nationalism with him, and it appealed to a lot of voters. Again, to them, voting for Trump was consistent with their interests. This is where additional values intercept what might otherwise be the rational decision.

So the moral of the story is this: what is irrational to one person is completely rational to another.

Turtleneck wrote:Speaking to the original question, we tend to go too far in assuming voters are rational. We should not try to understand voting behavior the way economists try to understand consumer behavior.

Economists like to assume people are perfectly rational. This makes theorizing about consumer behavior much easier. We tend to do the same with voting behavior. First, nobody ever possesses or fully understands the necessary information to be perfectly rational. You can only make a perfectly rational decision if you possess or fully understand perfect information. Second, and this is especially true with voting, there is a flood of additional values - cultural and ideational come to mind - that intercept what might otherwise be the rational decision. In other words, the the idea that voters are rational is a myth.

This brings the conversation back to points made by other posters. We need to make a distinction between those who knowingly vote against their interests and those who unknowingly do so. The former is likely to be rare, while the latter is quite prevalent. There was an interesting article in The Atlantic two days ago that spoke to the decision-making abilities of people, and why they seem to make less than optimal choices. It speaks to the idea that people do not understand tradeoffs and will make decisions that run counter to their interests.

Governing is often a cause-and-effect business. Give workers a tax break on retirement accounts? More people save for life after the working world. Offer a rebate for old cars? Drivers scrap their gas-guzzling Explorers in favor of sensible Corollas, and average fuel efficiency goes up.

It’s easy to sell something to voters when the costs and benefits are immediately obvious. But that’s not how most policies work. Many look downright terrible in the beginning—what, pay more taxes?—and deliver a payout only if people collectively change their future behavior. Take a carbon tax: Industry would pay more to produce energy, making stuff more expensive, but the price pressure might prompt an eventual shift to alternative fuels, which could deliver an overall benefit to society.

Voters, it turns out, have a really hard time with this.

New research suggests people distrust policies that inflict short-term pain but benefit everyone by encouraging a shift in behavior. They prefer alternatives that seem better at first, but merely reinforce bad decisions. This isn’t as simple as the marshmallow test—have one now, or have two 10 minutes from now—that demonstrates the average person’s preference for immediate rewards. Rather, it seems people have difficulty predicting a law’s “equilibrium effects,” or how it will change future behavior for the better. That, or they don’t trust it will actually work.

There is a good chance that Trump's economic policies, if they ever see the light of day, will gravitate between having no impact and being harmful. I personally do not see them gravitating toward helping the economy or the working class he has pledged to help. For example, I am concerned his preference for trade barriers will damage American exports and drive up prices at home, and that his tax plan is too expensive and will shift the burden to working and middle class families. This means I agree that many people voted for policies that run counter to their interests. But I do not think they knowingly did so, nor do I think it can be fully explained by a scientific study on decision-making.

This election was a referendum on globalization. This became obvious the moment Trump and Sanders emerged as serious contenders. The press was slow to pick up on this, but it was being written about in academic circles as early as August 2015. Their overlapping message on the economics of globalization, and success among working and middle class voters, made this clear. While Sanders opposed the global economy on the basis of economic inequality and environmental injustice, and Trump because it undermines American power, they were both enemies of the economics of globalization.

Globalization brings with it major change. Not only only does it disrupt economies for better or worse, but it also brings with it urbanization and cosmopolitanism. Trump was able to capitalize on the full effect of globalization. Some voters - especially with Obama still pushing the TPP - could not bring themselves to vote for Clinton. To them, voting for Clinton was voting against their interests. The are not interested in adapting to the new economy. They are interested in finding a way to rediscover the old economy. Others - maybe also worried about the economy - see a changing America and they do not like that they see. Trump brings an angry nationalism with him, and it appealed to a lot of voters. Again, to them, voting for Trump was consistent with their interests. This is where additional values intercept what might otherwise be the rational decision.

So the moral of the story is this: what is irrational to one person is completely rational to another.

That was a well thought out, reasonable post turtleneck.

Next time though could you just say some catch phrase like "it was a change election" and leave it at that. Thanks a bunch.

Should I have mentioned Republicans and Democrats? Specifically should I have admonished one party and then claim the other party never does anything wrong? I also failed to mention liberals and conservatives. While I appreciate your kind words, by Swill standards I get an F.

Turtleneck wrote:Should I have mentioned Republicans and Democrats? Specifically should I have admonished one party and then claim the other party never does anything wrong? I also failed to mention liberals and conservatives. While I appreciate your kind words, by Swill standards I get an F.

Dip duck and dive when it comes to what's happening n MI and other states where there is a move to privatize all but special Education. (No money to be made in special ed).

Now MI has trained its sights on fire and police and its all geberated by th majoriy GOP legislature.

Was reading an article about Kudlow and supply side economics tonight.

I know this is preaching the gospel of Bernie Sanders, but all of these programs that we are discussing in this thread would be easily funded if we just taxed these ultra wealthy fucks in our a country a little bit more in the billionaire class.

Take it for what it is worthy but I read that Credit Suisse bank predicts there will be 11 trillionaires in the next 60 years. Seriously, should one person have that much wealth?

steveschneider wrote:Was reading an article about Kudlow and supply side economics tonight.

I know this is preaching the gospel of Bernie Sanders, but all of these programs that we are discussing in this thread would be easily funded if we just taxed these ultra wealthy fucks in our a country a little bit more in the billionaire class.

Take it for what it is worthy but I read that Credit Suisse bank predicts there will be 11 trillionaires in the next 60 years. Seriously, should one person have that much wealth?

I know for a fact that I should. I would use it to build the best independent MSU sports message board on the Internet...and maybe spend a little on a low rent Kentucky board for you, Steve.

steveschneider wrote:Was reading an article about Kudlow and supply side economics tonight.

I know this is preaching the gospel of Bernie Sanders, but all of these programs that we are discussing in this thread would be easily funded if we just taxed these ultra wealthy fucks in our a country a little bit more in the billionaire class.

Take it for what it is worthy but I read that Credit Suisse bank predicts there will be 11 trillionaires in the next 60 years. Seriously, should one person have that much wealth?

Maybe I've said it here before but these angry Joe the plumbers absolutely believe they're one clogged toilet away from being a millionaire. Rubbing elbows with the Koch's and Devos's so they'll take the short term road blocks of their self interest because they believe they'll reap the benefits of the upper class.

One of my best friends who is ultra conservative has declared bankruptcy twice and has been on unemployment and other benefits because of health problems yet will rail against the left wingers trying to extend those programs. It's insanity.

Turtleneck wrote:

steveschneider wrote:Was reading an article about Kudlow and supply side economics tonight.

I know this is preaching the gospel of Bernie Sanders, but all of these programs that we are discussing in this thread would be easily funded if we just taxed these ultra wealthy fucks in our a country a little bit more in the billionaire class.

Take it for what it is worthy but I read that Credit Suisse bank predicts there will be 11 trillionaires in the next 60 years. Seriously, should one person have that much wealth?

I know for a fact that I should. I would use it to build the best independent MSU sports message board on the Internet...and maybe spend a little on a low rent Kentucky board for you, Steve.

We need to steal from the rich and give to the poor. Duh. Didn't you guise watch Robin Hood (the one with Errol Flynn... not the one with that traitor Costner... despite his handsomeness)?

DWags wrote:

steveschneider wrote:Was reading an article about Kudlow and supply side economics tonight.

I know this is preaching the gospel of Bernie Sanders, but all of these programs that we are discussing in this thread would be easily funded if we just taxed these ultra wealthy fucks in our a country a little bit more in the billionaire class.

Take it for what it is worthy but I read that Credit Suisse bank predicts there will be 11 trillionaires in the next 60 years. Seriously, should one person have that much wealth?

Maybe I've said it here before but these angry Joe the plumbers absolutely believe they're one clogged toilet away from being a millionaire. Rubbing elbows with the Koch's and Devos's so they'll take the short term road blocks of their self interest because they believe they'll reap the benefits of the upper class.

One of my best friends who is ultra conservative has declared bankruptcy twice and has been on unemployment and other benefits because of health problems yet will rail against the left wingers trying to extend those programs. It's insanity.

I just recalled an example that fits the theme of this topic...

I knew a guy from high school that was seriously injured by a drunk driver. He spent a lot of time in Origami Brain Injury Rehab down in Mason. I know he got some money from the courts, I forget the specifics but his mother also posted about how he qualified some kind of state assistance for the care he was receiving. I'm pretty sure he didn't have insurance. At any rate the entire time I saw his mom on FB railing against Obamacare in separate posts and then another week she'd post touching updates about the progress her son was making.

I'm with you I don't get it.

xsanguine wrote:We need to steal from the rich and give to the poor. Duh. Didn't you guise watch Robin Hood (the one with Errol Flynn... not the one with that traitor Costner... despite his handsomeness)?

'cause I don't like to dream about gettin paid

So I dig into the books of the rhymes that I made

To now test to see if I got pull

Hit the studio, 'cause I'm paid in full

xsanguine wrote:We need to steal from the rich and give to the poor. Duh. Didn't you guise watch Robin Hood (the one with Errol Flynn... not the one with that traitor Costner... despite his handsomeness)?

Nah, but when we have billionaires not paying as much taxes as their receptionists we have the wrong idea of who is stealing. But again, the story always seems to be that those guys pay so much more.

steveschneider wrote:

xsanguine wrote:We need to steal from the rich and give to the poor. Duh. Didn't you guise watch Robin Hood (the one with Errol Flynn... not the one with that traitor Costner... despite his handsomeness)?

'cause I don't like to dream about gettin paid

So I dig into the books of the rhymes that I made

To now test to see if I got pull

Hit the studio, 'cause I'm paid in full

Makaveli in this, Killuminati
All through your body
That blows like a 12-gauge shotty

FEEL ME!

Plus, Mama told me never stop until I bust a nut

I ain't a killer, but don't push me
Revenge is like the sweetest joy next to gettin' pussy

Na... naaaaa-aaahh.... Na... naaaaa-aaahh

(I can't do the little synthesizer pull very well)

Am I doing it right?

DWags wrote:

xsanguine wrote:We need to steal from the rich and give to the poor. Duh. Didn't you guise watch Robin Hood (the one with Errol Flynn... not the one with that traitor Costner... despite his handsomeness)?

Nah, but when we have billionaires not paying as much taxes as their receptionists we have the wrong idea of who is stealing. But again, the story always seems to be that those guys pay so much more.

I'd like to see us try to get everyone paying less taxes. But that doesn't get the young ladies as excited as finding someone else to tax for muh thangs.

Turtleneck wrote:Speaking to the original question, we tend to go too far in assuming voters are rational. We should not try to understand voting behavior the way economists try to understand consumer behavior.

Economists like to assume people are perfectly rational. This makes theorizing about consumer behavior much easier. We tend to do the same with voting behavior. First, nobody ever possesses or fully understands the necessary information to be perfectly rational. You can only make a perfectly rational decision if you possess or fully understand perfect information. Second, and this is especially true with voting, there is a flood of additional values - cultural and ideational come to mind - that intercept what might otherwise be the rational decision. In other words, the the idea that voters are rational is a myth.

This brings the conversation back to points made by other posters. We need to make a distinction between those who knowingly vote against their interests and those who unknowingly do so. The former is likely to be rare, while the latter is quite prevalent. There was an interesting article in The Atlantic two days ago that spoke to the decision-making abilities of people, and why they seem to make less than optimal choices. It speaks to the idea that people do not understand tradeoffs and will make decisions that run counter to their interests.

Governing is often a cause-and-effect business. Give workers a tax break on retirement accounts? More people save for life after the working world. Offer a rebate for old cars? Drivers scrap their gas-guzzling Explorers in favor of sensible Corollas, and average fuel efficiency goes up.

It’s easy to sell something to voters when the costs and benefits are immediately obvious. But that’s not how most policies work. Many look downright terrible in the beginning—what, pay more taxes?—and deliver a payout only if people collectively change their future behavior. Take a carbon tax: Industry would pay more to produce energy, making stuff more expensive, but the price pressure might prompt an eventual shift to alternative fuels, which could deliver an overall benefit to society.

Voters, it turns out, have a really hard time with this.

New research suggests people distrust policies that inflict short-term pain but benefit everyone by encouraging a shift in behavior. They prefer alternatives that seem better at first, but merely reinforce bad decisions. This isn’t as simple as the marshmallow test—have one now, or have two 10 minutes from now—that demonstrates the average person’s preference for immediate rewards. Rather, it seems people have difficulty predicting a law’s “equilibrium effects,” or how it will change future behavior for the better. That, or they don’t trust it will actually work.

There is a good chance that Trump's economic policies, if they ever see the light of day, will gravitate between having no impact and being harmful. I personally do not see them gravitating toward helping the economy or the working class he has pledged to help. For example, I am concerned his preference for trade barriers will damage American exports and drive up prices at home, and that his tax plan is too expensive and will shift the burden to working and middle class families. This means I agree that many people voted for policies that run counter to their interests. But I do not think they knowingly did so, nor do I think it can be fully explained by a scientific study on decision-making.

This election was a referendum on globalization. This became obvious the moment Trump and Sanders emerged as serious contenders. The press was slow to pick up on this, but it was being written about in academic circles as early as August 2015. Their overlapping message on the economics of globalization, and success among working and middle class voters, made this clear. While Sanders opposed the global economy on the basis of economic inequality and environmental injustice, and Trump because it undermines American power, they were both enemies of the economics of globalization.

Globalization brings with it major change. Not only only does it disrupt economies for better or worse, but it also brings with it urbanization and cosmopolitanism. Trump was able to capitalize on the full effect of globalization. Some voters - especially with Obama still pushing the TPP - could not bring themselves to vote for Clinton. To them, voting for Clinton was voting against their interests. They are not interested in adapting to the new economy. They are interested in finding a way to rediscover the old economy. Others - maybe also worried about the economy - see a changing America and they do not like that they see. Trump brings an angry nationalism with him, and it appealed to a lot of voters. Again, to them, voting for Trump was consistent with their interests. This is where additional values intercept what might otherwise be the rational decision.

So the moral of the story is this: what is irrational to one person is completely rational to another.

Good shit, Turtleneck. For what it is worth I clicked +1.

I get it this election was a referendum against globalization in the rust belt, but an overwhelming majority of this country still voted for Hillary and I thought her 'shift' against TPP was pure BS.

Even though it's pure counterfactual thinking, I agree with Obama when he says that he would have beaten Trump and he was pro TPP as well. I think Hillary was flat out a terrible candidate, and all the controversy around her some it fair and some of it unfair played right into Trump's strengths.

Overall though, I think globalization was a huge factor in this election. I could probably list about 10 things that played a big part in Trump's upset. What a crazy fucking year!

Here's a startling paragraph - read it closely.   Think about what's happened to Youngstown as they've "voted in their self interest" for 60 years.   Then ask yourself again about why they may have decided to vote differently.

I followed a well-worn trail to Youngstown. Reporters have for years been using its shuttered mills and blue-collar bars as a backdrop for stories on the decline of the Rust Belt. Youngstown has been literally shrunken by deindustrialization. In 1950, Youngstown was a major city, larger than Kansas City, Kansas, or Phoenix. Today, it is smaller than Albany, New York, and Albany, Georgia, and barely bigger than Albany, Oregon, a city with the distinction of being just the 11th largest city in all of Oregon.

That last sentence is fucking amazing.  60+ years of voting Democratic has reaped that reward.

INSIDE HOW TRUMP WON THE WHITE WORKING CLASS

LooseGoose wrote:Here's a startling paragraph - read it closely.   Think about what's happened to Youngstown as they've "voted in their self interest" for 60 years.   Then ask yourself again about why they may have decided to vote differently.

I followed a well-worn trail to Youngstown. Reporters have for years been using its shuttered mills and blue-collar bars as a backdrop for stories on the decline of the Rust Belt. Youngstown has been literally shrunken by deindustrialization. In 1950, Youngstown was a major city, larger than Kansas City, Kansas, or Phoenix. Today, it is smaller than Albany, New York, and Albany, Georgia, and barely bigger than Albany, Oregon, a city with the distinction of being just the 11th largest city in all of Oregon.

That last sentence is fucking amazing.  60+ years of voting Democratic has reaped that reward.

INSIDE HOW TRUMP WON THE WHITE WORKING CLASS

Now you've got me interested. Are you advocating voting parties into power that should force business in someway to stay where they are? Or, maybe are you advocating voting a party in which let's business CEO's dictate to the city they're in what they need and force concessions. I love when billionaires tell cities they need money to build stadiums or they'll leave. It's capitalism at its purist form. Here's my product, here's the terms I'll sell it to you at. If you don't like it that's cool, I'm out.

DWags wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:Here's a startling paragraph - read it closely.   Think about what's happened to Youngstown as they've "voted in their self interest" for 60 years.   Then ask yourself again about why they may have decided to vote differently.



That last sentence is fucking amazing.  60+ years of voting Democratic has reaped that reward.

INSIDE HOW TRUMP WON THE WHITE WORKING CLASS

Now you've got me interested. Are you advocating voting parties into power that should force business in someway to stay where they are? Or, maybe are you advocating voting a party in which let's business CEO's dictate to the city they're in what they need and force concessions. I love when billionaires tell cities they need money to build stadiums or they'll leave. It's capitalism at its purist form. Here's my product, here's the terms I'll sell it to you at. If you don't like it that's cool, I'm out.

No it's not. It's statism in it's purest form.

xsanguine wrote:

DWags wrote:

Now you've got me interested. Are you advocating voting parties into power that should force business in someway to stay where they are? Or, maybe are you advocating voting a party in which let's business CEO's dictate to the city they're in what they need and force concessions. I love when billionaires tell cities they need money to build stadiums or they'll leave. It's capitalism at its purist form. Here's my product, here's the terms I'll sell it to you at. If you don't like it that's cool, I'm out.

No it's not. It's statism in it's purest form.

See you at the red wings game brother.