What we need is an economy that works for most Americans.....

[ThatRobGuy]

Do we know how large this group is? How many voters shifted their party allegiance because of this?

There may be some polls that delve into that (I'd have to dig around), but there are some things we observed in 2024 that could be potential indicators.

Some major unions (which had supported democrats consistently in the past several election cycles) declined to make an endorsement (and a few even endorsed Trump)

Economically speaking, the democrats have always had more favorable policies from a labor union perspective, correct? So if we rule that out, that only leaves a couple of options.

1) they don't like women leading (unlikely as they endorsed Hillary)
2) they don't like black people leading (unlikely as they endorsed Obama)
3) some of the modern social stances don't resonate with blue collar union workers in rust belt states they way they do among college educated folks on the coasts.

I'm inclined to go with option 3.

It is 53% vs 44% that is the interesting comparison is it not? What were the missing 3%, didn't want to answer?

I'm assuming "not sure" or something to that effect -- every poll always has a few of those

Sure, that is why I asked what "throw under the bus" means? The trade-off is between how many new voters would be gained by "throwing LGBTQ under the bus" vs what would be lost.

I can't speak for the poster who worded it that way...

Given the rhetorical framings that many in the modern activism movements use, they'll often portray "not getting absolutely everything I want by next Thursday" as "being thrown under the bus".

And that's been somewhat consistent among younger activists across several issues.

For example: When Greta gave her "blah blah blah" speech (and yes, she did use those words) as a critique to Biden's Build Back Better climate provisions for not acting quickly enough. Sort of a "What's that?, you're not going to eliminate all use of fossil fuels tomorrow...well you just don't care about climate"

 

[Stopped_lurking]

There may be some polls that delve into that (I'd have to dig around), but there are some things we observed in 2024 that could be potential indicators.

Some major unions (which had supported democrats consistently in the past several election cycles) declined to make an endorsement (and a few even endorsed Trump)

Economically speaking, the democrats have always had more favorable policies from a labor union perspective, correct? So if we rule that out, that only leaves a couple of options.

I don't think we can rule it out as Trump has always been interested in bringing production to the US, which would?/should? be of interest of blue collar workers.

1) they don't like women leading (unlikely as they endorsed Hillary)
2) they don't like black people leading (unlikely as they endorsed Obama)
3) some of the modern social stances don't resonate with blue collar union workers in rust belt states they way they do among college educated folks on the coasts.

I'm inclined to go with option 3.

That is a subset (people in rust belt states) of a subset (members of a blue collar union) of a subset (cares about modern social stances enough to shift party), these kind of groups tend to shrink very fast in numbers. I guess it is complicated by the "winner takes all" - system and electoral college system you guys have.

I'm assuming "not sure" or something to that effect -- every poll always has a few of those
I can't speak for the poster who worded it that way...

Given the rhetorical framings that many in the modern activism movements use, they'll often portray "not getting absolutely everything I want by next Thursday" as "being thrown under the bus".

We shall see if it gets clearer.

And that's been somewhat consistent among younger activists across several issues.

For example: When Greta gave her "blah blah blah" speech (and yes, she did use those words) as a critique to Biden's Build Back Better climate provisions for not acting quickly enough. Sort of a "What's that?, you're not going to eliminate all use of fossil fuels tomorrow...well you just don't care about climate"

Relevance for this discussion? Is this the case now? As I said we shall see if it gets clearer.

 

[BCP1928]

Do we know how large this group is? How many voters shifted their party allegiance because of this?

It is 53% vs 44% that is the interesting comparison is it not? What were the missing 3%, didn't want to answer?

Sure, that is why I asked what "throw under the bus" means? The trade-off is between how many new voters would be gained by "throwing LGBTQ under the bus" vs what would be lost.

I mean confrontational policies like mandated pronoun use, requiring trans to be accepted on sports teams whether the participants want it or not, things like that. Many people on the "Left" just don't care that much about adhering to traditional standards of gender performance and didn't understand how important it is to conservatives. Unfortunatly, there are real social class issues at play here as well. I inhabit the blue collar world of work and didn't find the pronoun thing an issue, just some more nonsense from the prissy twits in HR which could be ignored. And I noticed that all of the complaints I heard, including in this forum, were framed in terms white collar workplaces. This is true of other issues which have been subsumed by "woke" such as DEI, which is seen to be most objected to in a white-collar context where job qualifications lack concrete definition. Consequently, if Democrats want the working class vote back they are going to have to decouple the "woke" issues from the labor/economics issues. Otherwise the Berniecrats will push them aside, because most of us, of whatever religion, don't really care that much about whether some clean shirt paper-pusher has to use pronouns he doen't like or has to use a restroom he doesn't feel "comfortable" in.

 

[BCP1928]

I don't think we can rule it out as Trump has always been interested in bringing production to the US, which would?/should? be of interest of blue collar workers.

That is a subset (people in rust belt states) of a subset (members of a blue collar union) of a subset (cares about modern social stances enough to shift party), these kind of groups tend to shrink very fast in numbers. I guess it is complicated by the "winner takes all" - system and electoral college system you guys have.

We shall see if it gets clearer.

Relevance for this discussion? Is this the case now? As I said we shall see if it gets clearer.

The numbers will shrink fast enough when the workforce finally realizes that Trump was lying to them just as the Democrats have been doing.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

I mean confrontational policies like mandated pronoun use, requiring trans to be accepted on sports teams whether the participants want it or not, things like that.

I guess mandated pronoun use was that everyone was expected to present their preferred pronouns, not that one had to use someone's preferred pronouns? Because not using someone's preferred pronouns would be beyond rude, and it would be expected to not be wilfully rude at any workplace I have encountered (compare to if somebody wants to use/not use nicknames). The sports issue is best determined by the sports associations, so I'm fine with the government butting out of that one.

Many people on the "Left" just don't care that much about adhering to traditional standards of gender performance and didn't understand how important it is to conservatives. Unfortunatly, there are real social class issues at play here as well. I inhabit the blue collar world of work and didn't find the pronoun thing an issue, just some more nonsense from the prissy twits in HR which could be ignored. And I noticed that all of the complaints I heard, including in this forum, were framed in terms white collar workplaces. This is true of other issues which have been subsumed by "woke" such as DEI, which is seen to be most objected to in a white-collar context where job qualifications lack concrete definition. Consequently, if Democrats want the working class vote back they are going to have to decouple the "woke" issues from the labor/economics issues. Otherwise the Berniecrats will push them aside, because most of us, of whatever religion, don't really care that much about whether some clean shirt paper-pusher has to use pronouns he doen't like or has to use a restroom he doesn't feel "comfortable" in.

I'm glad this is very far from what I saw throwing someone under the bus could mean A democrat campaigning on the reversal of Obergefell (or rhetoric of that kind, I guess it would be up to the supreme court) or to not reinstate the rights and benefits of trans (ex) service members, would lose a substantial part of the LGBTQ+ vote is my guess.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Economically speaking, the democrats have always had more favorable policies from a labor union perspective, correct? So if we rule that out, that only leaves a couple of options.

1) they don't like women leading (unlikely as they endorsed Hillary)
2) they don't like black people leading (unlikely as they endorsed Obama)
3) some of the modern social stances don't resonate with blue collar union workers in rust belt states they way they do among college educated folks on the coasts.

Why do you assume that these are the only three options (besides the fact that it allows you to conclude that the only possible explanation is the one that fits your narrative)?

I would bet that the reasons for unions supporting Trump were primarily economic. We had Biden and Harris talking about how great the economy was doing, and while that was objectively true by certain metrics, it didn't line up with the lived experiences of a lot of Americans - especially blue collar union workers in rust belt states. Labor is also generally supportive of an "America First" agenda, and has typically backed efforts to introduce protectionist tariffs and move away from free trade. It also has a tendency to be populist, which aligns them with Trump as well. I think that Republicans realized this and focused efforts on courting labor unions in 2024.

I don't doubt that some union members were turned off by the focus on LGBTQ+ initiatives and policies, but the shift has been building for quite a while now.

 

[BCP1928]

I guess mandated pronoun use was that everyone was expected to present their preferred pronouns, not that one had to use someone's preferred pronouns? Because not using someone's preferred pronouns would be beyond rude, and it would be expected to not be wilfully rude at any workplace I have encountered (compare to if somebody wants to use/not use nicknames).

No, the use of preferred pronouns was mandated in some workplaces, particularly in government, along with other language usage requirements and was enforced with displinary consequences. And there is definitely a class distinction in what constitutes "rudeness" in a workplace.

The sports issue is best determined by the sports associations, so I'm fine with the government butting out of that one.

They haven't; they government has now taken the other side. Trans in sports is now forbidden, even where the leagues and participants do not oppose it.

I'm glad this is very far from what I saw throwing someone under the bus could mean A democrat campaigning on the reversal of Obergefell or to not reinstate the rights and benefits of trans (ex) service members, would lose a substantial part of the LGBTQ+ vote is my guess.

And no one is suggesting any such thing.

 

[mark46]

Stock ownership generally increases with income; for example, a Gallup poll found that while 87% of U.S. adults with a household income of $100,000 or higher own stocks, this falls to just 28% for those with a household income of less than $50,000."

the top 1% own 50 percent of the stock market.
The top 10% own around 90 percent of the stock market.

Infographic: U.S. Stock Ownership Is High But Unequally Distributed

This chart shows the share of Americans who are invested in the stock market.

www.statista.com

I don't think we can say that works for all.








"

No, the stock market records don't mean that the economy works for all. However, 28% of those with household income under $50K affects a very large number of people.

The economy doesn't work in that that we don't guarantee access to adequate healthcare to the Middle Class.

The economy doesn't work in that consumers and farmers are being crippled by tariffs on food.

The economy doesn't work in that those under 30 (or is in 50 are unable to afford housing

 

[Stopped_lurking]

No, the use of preferred pronouns was mandated in some workplaces, particularly in government, along with other language usage requirements and was enforced with displinary consequences.
And there is definitely a class distinction in what constitutes "rudeness" in a workplace.

Wouldn't this just be filed with "problems to cooperate"? If someone is intentionally being rude and disruptive after getting told to shape up (and if they are easily replaceable) wouldn't they just be let go? I'm talking about working class workplaces as well, I've spent a third of my employed life in them.

They haven't; they government has now taken the other side. Trans in sports is now forbidden, even where the leagues and participants do not oppose it.

That is from my perspective an overreach, but I don't have any say in your elections.

And no one is suggesting any such thing.

Good, but trans military members have had their employment, rights and benefits impacted have they not? This is a reasonable concern if someone said that we should go back how it was in the 1950s. Hence my question.

 

[Always in His Presence]

The long-delayed September jobs report showed the US added way more jobs than expected​

• The US added 119,000 jobs in September, exceeding the expected 53,000.
• Unemployment unexpectedly ticked up.
• The data release was delayed due to the government shutdown.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Why do you assume that these are the only three options (besides the fact that it allows you to conclude that the only possible explanation is the one that fits your narrative)?

I would bet that the reasons for unions supporting Trump were primarily economic. We had Biden and Harris talking about how great the economy was doing, and while that was objectively true by certain metrics, it didn't line up with the lived experiences of a lot of Americans - especially blue collar union workers in rust belt states. Labor is also generally supportive of an "America First" agenda, and has typically backed efforts to introduce protectionist tariffs and move away from free trade. It also has a tendency to be populist, which aligns them with Trump as well. I think that Republicans realized this and focused efforts on courting labor unions in 2024.

I don't doubt that some union members were turned off by the focus on LGBTQ+ initiatives and policies, but the shift has been building for quite a while now.

I think you're underestimating how many midwestern and southern blue collar workers were put off by some of the "modern progressive" policies.

Not only on the LGBTQ+ front (though, speaking as someone who has a lot of blue collar southern folks on my mom's side of the family...some of that stuff was a bridge too far and they flat out acknowledged the fact that they were voting against their own economic interests by voting for Trump)

...but also on the "if you're against the immigration stances of the progressives, you're a bigot" front. People often forget the fact that unrestricted high concentrations of low-skill immigration (legal or illegal) doesn't create wage competition for white collar workers or people in STEM. It creates competition for blue collar workers.

An accountant, dental hygienist, teacher, chemical engineer, etc... isn't going to lose their job or be forced to take a lower wage by migrants offering to do it for cheaper. However, guys working at a meat packing plant, warehouse, etc... are going to be impacted by that.

Also, the environmental positions of progressives likely didn't sit too well with blue collar workers in those sectors either.

"We're going to teach your kids stuff you don't approve of, don't like it? Tough! we're the smart ones who went to college so we'll decide"
"We need to let in 3 million people who will offer to do your job 40% less than what you're getting paid to do it"
"For some of you, we're going to make your profession obsolete (with no realistic fallback plan) because that's the green thing to do"

You combine all of those factors, I can see why turnout for Harris among blue collar southern and midwestern folks was lackluster.

Those are the two main branches of "politicking" -- you've got your social and you've got your economic. If you want to win over a base (or subset of a base), you have to at least try to "meet them where they're at" on some things in both categories if you want to win.


"I'll get you a 40% raise, but I'll completely ignore the social issues" hasn't ever been a winning formula, despite what James Carville's famous quote would have people believe.

 

[BCP1928]

I think you're underestimating how many midwestern and southern blue collar workers were put off by some of the "modern progressive" policies.

Not only on the LGBTQ+ front (though, speaking as someone who has a lot of blue collar southern folks on my mom's side of the family...some of that stuff was a bridge too far and they flat out acknowledged the fact that they were voting against their own economic interests by voting for Trump)

...but also on the "if you're against the immigration stances of the progressives, you're a bigot" front. People often forget the fact that unrestricted high concentrations of low-skill immigration (legal or illegal) doesn't create wage competition for white collar workers or people in STEM. It creates competition for blue collar workers.

It creates wage competition when the workers are here illegally. Those here legally, such as asylum seekers and refugees, compete in the same wage market as citizens and are subject to the same labor laws. If there is illegal or undue wage competion the best fix is a union.

An accountant, dental hygienist, teacher, chemical engineer, etc... isn't going to lose their job or be forced to take a lower wage by migrants offering to do it for cheaper. However, guys working at a meat packing plant, warehouse, etc... are going to be impacted by that.

Also, the environmental positions of progressives likely didn't sit too well with blue collar workers in those sectors either.

Not as much as you think, especially workers with some skills. "Green" looks like interesting new jobs, and as the Green New Deal proposal suggested, the private sector will be doing the heavy lifting. Older semi-skilled workers who have been in their jobs for a long time, perhaps even at the same workplace, will never have as good a job again, if they ever get another job at all--and they know it.

"We're going to teach your kids stuff you don't approve of, don't like it? Tough! we're the smart ones who went to college so we'll decide"
"We need to let in 3 million people who will offer to do your job 40% less than what you're getting paid to do it"
"For some of you, we're going to make your profession obsolete (with no realistic fallback plan) because that's the green thing to do"

You combine all of those factors, I can see why turnout for Harris among blue collar southern and midwestern folks was lackluster.

Those are the two main branches of "politicking" -- you've got your social and you've got your economic. If you want to win over a base (or subset of a base), you have to at least try to "meet them where they're at" on some things in both categories if you want to win.


"I'll get you a 40% raise, but I'll completely ignore the social issues" hasn't ever been a winning formula, despite what James Carville's famous quote would have people believe.

How about, "I'm not going to give you a raise just yet because we got to own the libs first." Isn't that going to wear thin after a while, too?

 

[durangodawood]

The fundamental problem is a kind of "Federalism" where the federal government has way too much power. The locus of power needs to shift to the state and local level. Neither party is willing to cede their federal power, but the Republicans are much more likely to do so, especially post-Trump.

Im not sure how that relates exactly to the economy.

My off the cuff sense is the more that theres 50 different sets of rules across the land for how business can operate, the more friction and waste there is in everything business does.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

How about, "I'm not going to give you a raise just yet because we got to own the libs first." Isn't that going to wear thin after a while, too?

Based on some recent polling data, it already is wearing thin. So much so, that even the normally-MAGA outlet of Fox News had to acknowledge it.

MSN

 

[durangodawood]

As far as the "real value of work", I think that goes hand in hand with the higher ed attitudes I talked about as I think one drives the other to a substantial degree.

The value assigned to many jobs is precisely because of the manufactured association of "this job should pay more because it requires college in order to be able to do"

Which, if being applied properly and pragmatically, would make perfect sense. Nobody's going to question why an orthopedic surgeon makes more money than the check-out clerk at the grocery store. Obviously that surgeon did need years of advanced education to do that job.

However, with where we're at now...

We (as a society) try to post-hoc inject that rationale into things where it really doesn't make sense.

For instance, a car salesman vs. an ad exec for a marketing firm. Those two skillsets (in terms of scarcity and education required to do the job) actually aren't all that different, and a "people person" with good verbal and presentation skills can do either without a college degree.

However, the average car salesman (with a few years under their belt and steady sales record) will earn about $70k/year. Whereas, an ad account exec is often north of six figures, and we justify that based on "well, the latter should be worth more because you need to have a college degree to do it"

And it even happens at a micro level...where we (as a society, not us personally) assign arbitrary "value" to the work if it's one college degree over another. Where a person with a "fancy degree" is seen as having more valuable work output than the person with the "lesser" degree.

The company I've worked for scrapped the college requirement in favor of certs and on-the-job training (unfortunately long after I started working there), but speaking as a person who was part of hiring decisions.

You'd get the kids with a computer science degree from a Case Western or Baldwin Wallace, and they would get better starting offer that the kids from Akron U or Stark State...when in reality, there's wasn't any noticeable difference between them, as they were all extremely green and neither was as good as a person who'd been actually doing the job for a few years.

That^ is a great example of what Im talking about: how uneven bargaining positions allow employers exaggerated leeway to set the prices on workers labor. This allows irrelevant factors to creep into hiring criteria. (Relevant factors being the real money value of workers contribution.)

Also in your example, dont neglect the role perceived class plays in college degree requirements. Theres this notion that people who havent gone to college arent "like us."

 

[Richard T]

No, the stock market records don't mean that the economy works for all. However, 28% of those with household income under $50K affects a very large number of people.

The economy doesn't work in that that we don't guarantee access to adequate healthcare to the Middle Class.

The economy doesn't work in that consumers and farmers are being crippled by tariffs on food.

The economy doesn't work in that those under 30 (or is in 50 are unable to afford housing

It helps, but I imagine many oin that 28% own very few shares so probably not enough to make a difference.

 

[mark46]

It helps, but I imagine many oin that 28% own very few shares so probably not enough to make a difference.

Actually, I think that it is likely that the stock owned is through work plans, so there are indeed a lot of shares involved.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

That^ is a great example of what Im talking about: how uneven bargaining positions allow employers exaggerated leeway to set the prices on workers labor. This allows irrelevant factors to creep into hiring criteria. (Relevant factors being the real money value of workers contribution.)

Also in your example, dont neglect the role perceived class plays in college degree requirements. Theres this notion that people who havent gone to college arent "like us."

I would imagine moving more toward the Swiss model (which has shifted away from university education for many jobs, and toward 1-year vocational training programs) would likely also get some pushback in 2 other realms as well
(in addition to what I mentioned before about the "that's the way we've always done it" zeitgeist -- where we've operated on an assumption for so long, it just seems "normal")

1) pushback from college graduates themselves -- some folks are naturally going to be resistant to the idea of "the thing that made me better/smarter than others" and "this thing that I view as a personal accomplishment of intellectual achievement" being relegated to a status of "not all that special or important".

I never personally drank that kool-aid, I kind of saw it for what it was "a necessary expense for getting this job I want", but I've never hung my degree on the wall of my office like some people do (it's probably in a dusty box somewhere in my basement...if I haven't accidentally thrown it away already lol), never put my alumni sticker on my car, etc... But you have some people who are all about it. Them having a specific degree from a specific university is like their personal status amulet and an extension of their personality (Like Andy from the show The Office constantly finding ways to talk about how he went to Cornell)


2) - and here's where I may get some pushback for "making it political" lol - I do sincerely feel that the reasons why Democrats in particular have made it a point to try to get as many people into college as they can (through various means and funding proposals) are what I would refer to as "self-serving altruism"

Whenever these conversations come up, and legislators are hashing out proposals for either having degree requirements lowered, or an executive order is issued that removed the degree requirements for certain federal jobs, or accountability measures to put some of the financial burden on the colleges themselves when things don't work out for graduates...

The Democratic response is typically "No no! College is awesome and an honored institution... and it's super important that we make sure as many people as possible can go! We just need to increase taxes on the wealthy so the government can help pay tuition for more people or forgive college loans"

Let's not kid ourselves into thinking that the establishment Democrats haven't looked at the polling data and trends of the past 20-30 years.

...and see the obvious trend of "increasingly, college is pumping out voters for our team"

As the outcomes have shifted from "producing well rounded people" to "producing consistently liberal people", the more and more establishment democrats have prioritized making sure as many kids as possible can go.

 

[zippy2006]

Im not sure how that relates exactly to the economy.

Maybe think about a $35t federal debt along with the power given to the federal government to borrow without limit. Beyond that, the economy is not a toy one plays and tinkers with.

I can scarcely contemplate a greater calamity that could befall this country than to be loaded with a debt exceeding our ability ever to discharge. It is unwise and improvident to vest in the general government a power to borrow at discretion without any limitation or restriction.
- "Brutus," 1788 - Anti-Federalist Papers #23

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Maybe think about a $35t federal debt along with the power given to the federal government to borrow without limit. Beyond that, the economy is not a toy one plays and tinkers with.

I see that a separate issue.

Virtually every developed first-world country has some form of a debt-based central-bank governed economy.

While that wouldn't necessarily be my first choice for how to structure an economy, it's certainly not the main barrier to having an economy that "works for everyone".