All Hollowed Out
January 18, 2016 11:05 AM Subscribe
The lonely poverty of America's white working class. (slAtlantic)
Shouraku - the link worked for me, for what it's worth.
posted by LegallyBread at 12:13 PM on January 18, 2016
posted by LegallyBread at 12:13 PM on January 18, 2016
works for me, but is also the first hit (currently, for me) here.
posted by andrewcooke at 12:17 PM on January 18, 2016
posted by andrewcooke at 12:17 PM on January 18, 2016
I can't help it, the first thing that came to mind:
As one of these poorer Americans, it certainly sometimes feels like I'm amongst the living dead.
The boss battles are not nearly as epic, but I probably spend nearly as much time grinding for experience IRL as in Dork Souls.
(inb4 "you own video games, you're not that poor!")
posted by deadaluspark at 12:28 PM on January 18, 2016 [11 favorites]
"Be careful out there, wouldn't want to see you go Hollow."
As one of these poorer Americans, it certainly sometimes feels like I'm amongst the living dead.
The boss battles are not nearly as epic, but I probably spend nearly as much time grinding for experience IRL as in Dork Souls.
(inb4 "you own video games, you're not that poor!")
posted by deadaluspark at 12:28 PM on January 18, 2016 [11 favorites]
Is this a Dark Souls reference, am I being trolled in a really meta way?
posted by ethansr at 12:29 PM on January 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by ethansr at 12:29 PM on January 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Sadly, and as always, do not read the comments.
posted by Thorzdad at 12:32 PM on January 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Thorzdad at 12:32 PM on January 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
NYT: Drug Overdoses Propel Rise in Mortality Rates of Young Whites summarizes findings of a study that seems to confirm the results Case and Deaton study (previously) mentioned in this aritcle.
(via Erik Loomis @ LGM: Increasing mortality rates and whiteness as a marked category)
posted by tonycpsu at 12:38 PM on January 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
(via Erik Loomis @ LGM: Increasing mortality rates and whiteness as a marked category)
posted by tonycpsu at 12:38 PM on January 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
I made the mistake of scanning the comments and I think I've suffered brain damage as a result.
posted by aramaic at 12:38 PM on January 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by aramaic at 12:38 PM on January 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
I am not an economist, but I think a least some chunk of this problem could be solved by raising the minimum wage. For those who have jobs, the pay is often staggeringly low.
posted by tuesdayschild at 12:40 PM on January 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by tuesdayschild at 12:40 PM on January 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
If you think the social safety net is in bad shape now just imagine what the GOP will do to it if they get the White House.
posted by tommasz at 12:54 PM on January 18, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by tommasz at 12:54 PM on January 18, 2016 [9 favorites]
Well, minimum wage is indeed one of the problems, but the other continues to be that we are gradually replacing low-intelligence/skill jobs with automation (let me be clear, I am not trying to be rude about these people, many of the people who fit this description are my dear friends, or even closer to me, like my mother. It actually kills me that we are slowly taking away any semblance of a normal life for these people.) and that the elites in companies like Google or in the US Government keep saying all they need is "retraining." Well, that's all fine and good, but seriously, not everyone is cut out to be a programmer. I suck at programming logic, and programming is probably the most boring and infuriating process I could force myself to do for money. I feel pretty good about my command over the English language, but other than nearly a decade in television, I don't have tons of applicable skills (and since the TV industry is dying, its not like finding a job like that again is easy, nor is trying to get people to believe I can actually learn to do other skilled labor by showing them that I did other skilled labor that I learned from the ground up.), and so I am pretty much in the same boat as well, despite being well educated and moderately intelligent with a good ability to learn new skills. I'm still left in the dust as to being able to pursue something that would get me past the $13/hour mark. There's just no upward mobility anymore for low-level jobs, and the low-level jobs are fewer and farther between. Minimum wage hasn't even been the problem for me, it's breaking the fucking $11/$12 barrier. I live in the state with the highest minimum wage, and I have regularly earned more than that, but just barely.
Long story short, minimum wage won't fix there not being enough low-skill jobs to go around for people who just don't have the cognitive capacity or the ability to learn new skills easily to get going in high paying jobs.
My argument is that we need to absolutely change how we treat human life and human rights. We are allowing millions to slide into lives of quiet desperation because we are not able to face the fact that we truly have automated away a huge amount of the low-level labor in the world (or exported it to other countries which pay less), and that we can't keep using this system where people have to prove they are worth keeping alive. You know what, not a single person on this planet ASKED to be born, yet daily we are tasked with proving that we are worth keeping alive. Worth giving medical care to, worth feeding, worth having a social life, worth living in a safe part of town. You know, I get it, there's a lot of legitimate fuck-ups in the world, and no amount of education and access will stop them from being fuck ups, but I'm sick as fuck of punishing the people who bust their assess doing the "right things" their whole lives, playing by the rules of the game and still end up getting fucked.
My mother is one of those people. She is not especially educated, she works as a caretaker, and she will probably be working until the day she dies. She is getting screwed by the rich daughter of the rich old lady she caretakes for, being forced to take pay under the table or take a paycut. I wish she had ever told me at the time, she waited until five years later to admit it to me, and that this is why she was buried under a huge tax burden. Because some rich fucking bitch who HAS THE MONEY TO FUCKING PAY TAXES can't be arsed to fucking do it, so she offloads the burden onto a woman who works pretty much 365 days a year without break, because she has to to be able to continue to afford the mortgage on her house, which is almost finally paid off near the end of her life (no thanks to her husband who almost screwed her out of it, which is why she divorced him, and why the mortgage has gone on for so long.).
Sorry for kind of letting this become a rant, but it really hits close to home for me. I've seen family and friends do nothing but play by the rules and get fucked and get lower and lower pay, all above minimum wage, and their lives have become steadily worse and more precarious. It. is. fucking. sickening. ...and a way bigger problem than minimum wage can solve.
posted by deadaluspark at 12:57 PM on January 18, 2016 [154 favorites]
Long story short, minimum wage won't fix there not being enough low-skill jobs to go around for people who just don't have the cognitive capacity or the ability to learn new skills easily to get going in high paying jobs.
My argument is that we need to absolutely change how we treat human life and human rights. We are allowing millions to slide into lives of quiet desperation because we are not able to face the fact that we truly have automated away a huge amount of the low-level labor in the world (or exported it to other countries which pay less), and that we can't keep using this system where people have to prove they are worth keeping alive. You know what, not a single person on this planet ASKED to be born, yet daily we are tasked with proving that we are worth keeping alive. Worth giving medical care to, worth feeding, worth having a social life, worth living in a safe part of town. You know, I get it, there's a lot of legitimate fuck-ups in the world, and no amount of education and access will stop them from being fuck ups, but I'm sick as fuck of punishing the people who bust their assess doing the "right things" their whole lives, playing by the rules of the game and still end up getting fucked.
My mother is one of those people. She is not especially educated, she works as a caretaker, and she will probably be working until the day she dies. She is getting screwed by the rich daughter of the rich old lady she caretakes for, being forced to take pay under the table or take a paycut. I wish she had ever told me at the time, she waited until five years later to admit it to me, and that this is why she was buried under a huge tax burden. Because some rich fucking bitch who HAS THE MONEY TO FUCKING PAY TAXES can't be arsed to fucking do it, so she offloads the burden onto a woman who works pretty much 365 days a year without break, because she has to to be able to continue to afford the mortgage on her house, which is almost finally paid off near the end of her life (no thanks to her husband who almost screwed her out of it, which is why she divorced him, and why the mortgage has gone on for so long.).
Sorry for kind of letting this become a rant, but it really hits close to home for me. I've seen family and friends do nothing but play by the rules and get fucked and get lower and lower pay, all above minimum wage, and their lives have become steadily worse and more precarious. It. is. fucking. sickening. ...and a way bigger problem than minimum wage can solve.
posted by deadaluspark at 12:57 PM on January 18, 2016 [154 favorites]
I can't imagine what will happen if poverty gets too much worse in the US. People won't just let themselves starve, or let loved ones die from lack of medical access, or whatever.
Which is why the rich in the US are ultimately playing a losing game - the worse inequality gets the more unstable and violent society will be. Is it worth keeping an extra 10% of your tax money if you have to live your life in fear of violent crime?
posted by Mitrovarr at 12:59 PM on January 18, 2016 [25 favorites]
Which is why the rich in the US are ultimately playing a losing game - the worse inequality gets the more unstable and violent society will be. Is it worth keeping an extra 10% of your tax money if you have to live your life in fear of violent crime?
posted by Mitrovarr at 12:59 PM on January 18, 2016 [25 favorites]
I am not an economist, but I think a least some chunk of this problem could be solved by raising the minimum wage. For those who have jobs, the pay is often staggeringly low.
One problem is that a lot of unskilled and semi-skilled jobs have been automated away. Raising the minimum wage won't help if a robot does the same job more cheaply and efficiently. If one believes in the inherent virtue of working for a living (out of some combination of paleo-socialism and Calvinism perhaps), then perhaps it would make sense to have the government pay employers to hire more expensive, less efficient humans instead of robots by offsetting the difference between how much the labour would be worth compared to robots and the minimum wage. Though here we're into make-work territory, of brigades of labourers digging holes and then filling them.
Perhaps it is time to look at the universal basic income; one is hearing increasingly more about it.
The other alternative is that, as the economy automates, and any sort of universal basic income is resisted on “moral”/ideological grounds, the economy will be organised into swarms of billions of servants radiating outwards from the titans who own capital and get to call the shots. A tiny minority of these will be footmen or chambermaids for the Shkrelis and Abramoviches of this world, some will be on reserve, paid a modestly comfortable allowance for being on call 24/7 should the boss decide to make an appearance in, say, Montevideo or Montréal and need his penthouse to be ready for him and someone to be there to serve him his martini the way he likes it. But more will radiate outwards, at several hops' remove: the staff in the household of the boss's chief attorney or head of security, contractors brought in to design a new palace or luxury submarine, and then the chains of labour to keep those people's shirts pressed, lunch delivered and basically to underscore by their presence how relatively high up the pyramid they are.
posted by acb at 1:01 PM on January 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
One problem is that a lot of unskilled and semi-skilled jobs have been automated away. Raising the minimum wage won't help if a robot does the same job more cheaply and efficiently. If one believes in the inherent virtue of working for a living (out of some combination of paleo-socialism and Calvinism perhaps), then perhaps it would make sense to have the government pay employers to hire more expensive, less efficient humans instead of robots by offsetting the difference between how much the labour would be worth compared to robots and the minimum wage. Though here we're into make-work territory, of brigades of labourers digging holes and then filling them.
Perhaps it is time to look at the universal basic income; one is hearing increasingly more about it.
The other alternative is that, as the economy automates, and any sort of universal basic income is resisted on “moral”/ideological grounds, the economy will be organised into swarms of billions of servants radiating outwards from the titans who own capital and get to call the shots. A tiny minority of these will be footmen or chambermaids for the Shkrelis and Abramoviches of this world, some will be on reserve, paid a modestly comfortable allowance for being on call 24/7 should the boss decide to make an appearance in, say, Montevideo or Montréal and need his penthouse to be ready for him and someone to be there to serve him his martini the way he likes it. But more will radiate outwards, at several hops' remove: the staff in the household of the boss's chief attorney or head of security, contractors brought in to design a new palace or luxury submarine, and then the chains of labour to keep those people's shirts pressed, lunch delivered and basically to underscore by their presence how relatively high up the pyramid they are.
posted by acb at 1:01 PM on January 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
"Raising the minimum wage won't help if a robot does the same job more cheaply and efficiently."
In fact, it will raise the ROI on switching from humans to robots.
posted by Jacqueline at 1:05 PM on January 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
In fact, it will raise the ROI on switching from humans to robots.
posted by Jacqueline at 1:05 PM on January 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
...the worse inequality gets the more unstable and violent society will be. Is it worth keeping an extra 10% of your tax money if you have to live your life in fear of violent crime?
I'm pretty sure the truly wealthy (as opposed to the merely rich) will have successfully segregated themselves from society by then. Private police forces, whole neighborhoods built like fortresses, self-driving vehicles built like armored cars delivering all necessities, etc. etc.
posted by Thorzdad at 1:08 PM on January 18, 2016 [15 favorites]
I'm pretty sure the truly wealthy (as opposed to the merely rich) will have successfully segregated themselves from society by then. Private police forces, whole neighborhoods built like fortresses, self-driving vehicles built like armored cars delivering all necessities, etc. etc.
posted by Thorzdad at 1:08 PM on January 18, 2016 [15 favorites]
While I also advocate for a Universal Basic Income, I worry so much that it is just a band-aid for a failed economic system that absolutely needs a re-think.
I'm at this weird crossroads where I feel that we actually need full-on socialism for certain aspects of society ("needs"), and we need regulated capitalism for other aspects ("wants").
I'm not against private property entirely, such as a nice award you won, or perhaps a piece of art you bought from an artist. However, I'm not sure if at this point in human history if private property in terms of land-ownership is actually a good thing at all.
posted by deadaluspark at 1:11 PM on January 18, 2016 [8 favorites]
I'm at this weird crossroads where I feel that we actually need full-on socialism for certain aspects of society ("needs"), and we need regulated capitalism for other aspects ("wants").
I'm not against private property entirely, such as a nice award you won, or perhaps a piece of art you bought from an artist. However, I'm not sure if at this point in human history if private property in terms of land-ownership is actually a good thing at all.
posted by deadaluspark at 1:11 PM on January 18, 2016 [8 favorites]
I'm pretty sure the truly wealthy (as opposed to the merely rich) will have successfully segregated themselves from society by then.
And they will have done so by convincing working-class whites that their ability to keep more of their money once they become wealthy is more important than the fact that they don't have any money right now.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:11 PM on January 18, 2016 [24 favorites]
And they will have done so by convincing working-class whites that their ability to keep more of their money once they become wealthy is more important than the fact that they don't have any money right now.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:11 PM on January 18, 2016 [24 favorites]
I'm pretty sure the truly wealthy (as opposed to the merely rich) will have successfully segregated themselves from society by then. Private police forces, whole neighborhoods built like fortresses, self-driving vehicles built like armored cars delivering all necessities, etc. etc.
Recently, whilst reading about the health tolls of diesel pollution in big cities, and the prospect of the UK, having left the EU, tearing up its already feeble environmental regulations at the behest of big business, it occurred to me that the next thing after gated communities would be domed communities. I had a vision of huge tankers of compressed Swiss alpine air being shipped, overland and then by sea, to Felixtowe or somewhere and then trucked to the luxury towers of London, so that the titans need not breathe diesel particulates.
posted by acb at 1:13 PM on January 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
Recently, whilst reading about the health tolls of diesel pollution in big cities, and the prospect of the UK, having left the EU, tearing up its already feeble environmental regulations at the behest of big business, it occurred to me that the next thing after gated communities would be domed communities. I had a vision of huge tankers of compressed Swiss alpine air being shipped, overland and then by sea, to Felixtowe or somewhere and then trucked to the luxury towers of London, so that the titans need not breathe diesel particulates.
posted by acb at 1:13 PM on January 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
Canadian start-up sells bottled air to China, says sales booming
posted by Jacqueline at 1:14 PM on January 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by Jacqueline at 1:14 PM on January 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
Perhaps it is time to look at the universal basic income; one is hearing increasingly more about it.
Around 5 million people in the UK receive benefits from the state to top up their pitifully low wages from zero-hours jobs - a transfer of wealth from the state to corporations like Starbucks, who also don't pay any tax. The state will expand this role to eventually pay 100 percent of a basic survival minimum to workers while they are still forced to work for corporations - that's what universal basic income will look like.
posted by colie at 1:15 PM on January 18, 2016 [12 favorites]
Around 5 million people in the UK receive benefits from the state to top up their pitifully low wages from zero-hours jobs - a transfer of wealth from the state to corporations like Starbucks, who also don't pay any tax. The state will expand this role to eventually pay 100 percent of a basic survival minimum to workers while they are still forced to work for corporations - that's what universal basic income will look like.
posted by colie at 1:15 PM on January 18, 2016 [12 favorites]
The state will expand this role to eventually pay 100 percent of a basic survival minimum to workers while they are still forced to work for corporations
That is assuming that their labour is worth something. I mean, how many greeters does Wal-Mart need?
posted by acb at 1:17 PM on January 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
That is assuming that their labour is worth something. I mean, how many greeters does Wal-Mart need?
posted by acb at 1:17 PM on January 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Canadian start-up sells bottled air to China, says sales booming
It's awesome when stuff speculated about in hard sci-fi stories becomes real.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:20 PM on January 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
It's awesome when stuff speculated about in hard sci-fi stories becomes real.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:20 PM on January 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
Eh, 500 or 1000 canisters to a country as populous as China is a microscopic fraction of the people who might buy it as a gag gift, but clickbaiters gonna clickbait.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:27 PM on January 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 1:27 PM on January 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
My favorite science-fiction-into-reality will always be the Black Mirror about the UK Prime Minister fucking a pig.
I don't like David Cameron, but I like that he gave me that as a thing "that happened."
Just one of those things that makes me feel all right about being poor. My life my suck in a myriad of ways, but at least I have enough self respect and self worth to have never been bullied into sticking my dick into a dead pig just so I could be part of some secret society. (Not that I've never been offered, but I'm fairly sure the answer would be a resounding "Fuck no, what is your goddamned problem?")
posted by deadaluspark at 1:28 PM on January 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
I don't like David Cameron, but I like that he gave me that as a thing "that happened."
Just one of those things that makes me feel all right about being poor. My life my suck in a myriad of ways, but at least I have enough self respect and self worth to have never been bullied into sticking my dick into a dead pig just so I could be part of some secret society. (Not that I've never been offered, but I'm fairly sure the answer would be a resounding "Fuck no, what is your goddamned problem?")
posted by deadaluspark at 1:28 PM on January 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
Is it worth keeping an extra 10% of your tax money if you have to live your life in fear of violent crime?
The 1% is so physically removed from the consequences of its actions, and so well-protected, that no amount of poverty-fueled violence can touch it.
posted by ryanshepard at 1:34 PM on January 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
The 1% is so physically removed from the consequences of its actions, and so well-protected, that no amount of poverty-fueled violence can touch it.
posted by ryanshepard at 1:34 PM on January 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
The top 0.1% maybe. The top 1%, you'd be surprised.
posted by Bee'sWing at 1:38 PM on January 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Bee'sWing at 1:38 PM on January 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
As a rhetorical device, “the 1%” actually refers to the top 0.01%.
posted by acb at 1:41 PM on January 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by acb at 1:41 PM on January 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
Does it?
I used to work among some people who were definitely in the 1% ($250 to 750 thousand per year incomes apart from stock options). They lived in nice houses in nice neighborhoods but they weren't gated communities and they didn't have any extraordinary security.
posted by Bee'sWing at 1:48 PM on January 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
I used to work among some people who were definitely in the 1% ($250 to 750 thousand per year incomes apart from stock options). They lived in nice houses in nice neighborhoods but they weren't gated communities and they didn't have any extraordinary security.
posted by Bee'sWing at 1:48 PM on January 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Maybe a more accurate terminology for Those At The Top would be "the Nobility", since Capitalism is rapidly devolving into a return of Feudalism.
posted by oneswellfoop at 1:50 PM on January 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by oneswellfoop at 1:50 PM on January 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
How's that Yellowstone Super-volcano coming? Not yet? Well, shit.
God Bless America.
P.S. I hope The Execrable Murray has an unpleasant day and stubs his toe on the way to bed.
posted by ob1quixote at 1:50 PM on January 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
God Bless America.
P.S. I hope The Execrable Murray has an unpleasant day and stubs his toe on the way to bed.
posted by ob1quixote at 1:50 PM on January 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
As a rhetorical device, “the 1%” actually refers to the top 0.01%.
Maybe, but having watched the coordinated assault on Occupy and the police becoming progressively more militarized post-9/11, I'm not at all convinced this applies only to the stratosphere of US wealth. I strongly suspect that even an attempt to attack average multimillionaires would result in a deadly, no-holds-bar response, followed by nationwide preemptive surveillance, arrests, infiltration, agents provocateurs, etc.
posted by ryanshepard at 1:52 PM on January 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
Maybe, but having watched the coordinated assault on Occupy and the police becoming progressively more militarized post-9/11, I'm not at all convinced this applies only to the stratosphere of US wealth. I strongly suspect that even an attempt to attack average multimillionaires would result in a deadly, no-holds-bar response, followed by nationwide preemptive surveillance, arrests, infiltration, agents provocateurs, etc.
posted by ryanshepard at 1:52 PM on January 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
I found this piece interesting but I was upset that it gave a shred of credibility to Charles "Bell Curve" Murray by citing him. (On preview: I suppose ob1quixote was too.)
posted by dhens at 1:53 PM on January 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by dhens at 1:53 PM on January 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Young white people are losing their faith in the American Dream
posted by the man of twists and turns at 1:53 PM on January 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by the man of twists and turns at 1:53 PM on January 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think this article is largely right when it posits the right-wing individualist and "meritocratic" ethos so prevalent among the white working class is doing a lot of damage. It would make sense for the same trends to be absent among the racialized working class because they know how false this narrative is. For someone so invested in the idea that you are responsible for your own station in life, having the rug ripped out from under you must be so much harder to recover from.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 2:02 PM on January 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by [expletive deleted] at 2:02 PM on January 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
100 years ago, it was a commonplace that an era of leisure and prosperity was coming, due to technical advances in production. That did not happen.....why didn't it occur to optimistic writers like Bertrand Russell that improvements in productivity would instead go to increasing profits and, to some extent, wages and benefits? Maybe they didn't want to drift over into Marxism, I don't know.
It looks like we are now entering a new era where a great deal of the workforce will be superfluous, just totally unneeded by business. But the whole society is wound up around the pseudo-religion of the Work Ethic that got clamped into place a couple of hundred years ago, when the need for industrial labor was soaring, and the proponents of that ideology think they are taking dictation straight from God. Displaced workers will only appear as bums and freeloaders and takers and losers to this Work Ethic worldview, no matter how high the cognitive dissonance rises. Good luck passing a basic income until there is palpable fear of widespread food riots.
posted by thelonius at 2:24 PM on January 18, 2016 [14 favorites]
It looks like we are now entering a new era where a great deal of the workforce will be superfluous, just totally unneeded by business. But the whole society is wound up around the pseudo-religion of the Work Ethic that got clamped into place a couple of hundred years ago, when the need for industrial labor was soaring, and the proponents of that ideology think they are taking dictation straight from God. Displaced workers will only appear as bums and freeloaders and takers and losers to this Work Ethic worldview, no matter how high the cognitive dissonance rises. Good luck passing a basic income until there is palpable fear of widespread food riots.
posted by thelonius at 2:24 PM on January 18, 2016 [14 favorites]
One thing I think we haven't adjusted to is that the minimum wage is only an effective cudgel in automation-proof industries. Otherwise there's no reason not to replace jobs with robots that have high initial cost but are ultimately owned by the company with little upkeep.
I don't like the lack of sympathy for female divorcees in the article. It makes them out to be cutthroats trying to survive by any means, rather than women who realize that the economic promise of marriage - which has often been the carrot for women in desperate situations - is no longer working out for them.
posted by corb at 2:37 PM on January 18, 2016 [6 favorites]
I don't like the lack of sympathy for female divorcees in the article. It makes them out to be cutthroats trying to survive by any means, rather than women who realize that the economic promise of marriage - which has often been the carrot for women in desperate situations - is no longer working out for them.
posted by corb at 2:37 PM on January 18, 2016 [6 favorites]
dhens: “I found this piece interesting but I was upset that it gave a shred of credibility to Charles "Bell Curve" Murray by citing him. ”For the record, the article refers to The Execrable Murray's Coming Apart, discussed in detail in the posts I linked.
posted by ob1quixote at 2:44 PM on January 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
I don't like the lack of sympathy for female divorcees in the article. It makes them out to be cutthroats trying to survive by any means, rather than women who realize that the economic promise of marriage - which has often been the carrot for women in desperate situations - is no longer working out for them.
I actually took note that one example was a husband who left a wife for not making enough.
One form of social support that many in the working class are going without is marriage. I’m reminded of another worker I interviewed, a jobless 54-year-old white woman who used to work at a Ford plant. Her husband left her, she says, when the paychecks stopped coming. “Jesus Christ,” she told him once. “I didn’t think that our relationship was based on the amount of money that I brought in.”
It's just impossible to support a family on one working class salary. One way or another, we need to start fixing this. Political parties that bill themselves as saviors of the family should especially be taking note of the problem.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:49 PM on January 18, 2016 [14 favorites]
I actually took note that one example was a husband who left a wife for not making enough.
One form of social support that many in the working class are going without is marriage. I’m reminded of another worker I interviewed, a jobless 54-year-old white woman who used to work at a Ford plant. Her husband left her, she says, when the paychecks stopped coming. “Jesus Christ,” she told him once. “I didn’t think that our relationship was based on the amount of money that I brought in.”
It's just impossible to support a family on one working class salary. One way or another, we need to start fixing this. Political parties that bill themselves as saviors of the family should especially be taking note of the problem.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:49 PM on January 18, 2016 [14 favorites]
I am very much on the "automate everything and redistribute the profits as hard cash and services" train for the future but it's also worth keeping in mind that in the shorter term a lot of jobs are still being done most cost-effectively not by machines but by people in countries with almost no labor protections.
posted by atoxyl at 3:10 PM on January 18, 2016 [12 favorites]
posted by atoxyl at 3:10 PM on January 18, 2016 [12 favorites]
At this point, all I can realistically hope for would be a life of the relative comfort I have now until I can't work any longer (probably another 35-40 years), then I'll use one of my credit cards to get a cash advance, buy a shitload of heroin, and say goodbye to the world.
posted by Automocar at 3:13 PM on January 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Automocar at 3:13 PM on January 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
Which is why the rich in the US are ultimately playing a losing game - the worse inequality gets the more unstable and violent society will be. Is it worth keeping an extra 10% of your tax money if you have to live your life in fear of violent crime?
The answer is probably yes. They dream of gated communities and the right wing narrative that violent crime has nothing to do with inequality (or that income inequality even "truly" exists) but rather is the result of lazy nefarious people (throw in racism and sexism whenever you can) is being bought wholesale buy a lot of the dwindling middle class not to mention a rather large amount of poor whites. Such narratives have gone on for years in England with Thatcherism and really took off with Reagan in office in the States. Throw in the absurd war on drugs and the resulting militancy of the police, the military and war machine itself and clearly the horrible times we live in are only going to get worse.
People and people's lives are systemically and easily dismissed. The big lie is that in the modern world this has changed. It really hasn't, at least in the States and efforts to make it true are being thwarted at all times.
We've been swindled. I imagine that 1984 is still studied in schools but we've been taken over by a much more insidious ruling class that in many ways have made us proles willing slaves.
posted by juiceCake at 3:25 PM on January 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
The answer is probably yes. They dream of gated communities and the right wing narrative that violent crime has nothing to do with inequality (or that income inequality even "truly" exists) but rather is the result of lazy nefarious people (throw in racism and sexism whenever you can) is being bought wholesale buy a lot of the dwindling middle class not to mention a rather large amount of poor whites. Such narratives have gone on for years in England with Thatcherism and really took off with Reagan in office in the States. Throw in the absurd war on drugs and the resulting militancy of the police, the military and war machine itself and clearly the horrible times we live in are only going to get worse.
People and people's lives are systemically and easily dismissed. The big lie is that in the modern world this has changed. It really hasn't, at least in the States and efforts to make it true are being thwarted at all times.
We've been swindled. I imagine that 1984 is still studied in schools but we've been taken over by a much more insidious ruling class that in many ways have made us proles willing slaves.
posted by juiceCake at 3:25 PM on January 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
the worse inequality gets the more unstable and violent society will be
Not likely. Inequality is higher and crime is lower than at any time in the recent past.
posted by jpe at 3:29 PM on January 18, 2016 [6 favorites]
Not likely. Inequality is higher and crime is lower than at any time in the recent past.
posted by jpe at 3:29 PM on January 18, 2016 [6 favorites]
Much as I like the idea of a guaranteed basic income, it's not the only (or even necessarily the best) solution.
There's lots of work that needs to be done by humans: infrastructure repair, medical support, education, social services, and so on. We just can't seem to work up the will to fund that work, even though it desperately needs to be done, and even though there are lots of people who would be glad to do it.
posted by Kilter at 3:32 PM on January 18, 2016 [16 favorites]
There's lots of work that needs to be done by humans: infrastructure repair, medical support, education, social services, and so on. We just can't seem to work up the will to fund that work, even though it desperately needs to be done, and even though there are lots of people who would be glad to do it.
posted by Kilter at 3:32 PM on January 18, 2016 [16 favorites]
I posted this because I thought it was worth talking about it, but it is going to seem more real now. My mom, who will be 63 this year, just called to ask if I could send her $1500 "because we've fallen a little behind." My dad has Parkinson's as well as congestive heart failure, so between the amount he gets from his pension (which isn't much) and what she gets from Social Security, I could hear the panic in her voice as she said, "I have to keep this crappy job that I have because who is going to hire a woman in her 60s who never bothered to become computer savvy? I hate my job, I can't save anything, but I have to keep it because what else can I do?"
Fuck. And the thing is, I am not sure I have that money to send her, given the current CAD/USD exchange rate.
posted by Kitteh at 4:07 PM on January 18, 2016 [14 favorites]
Fuck. And the thing is, I am not sure I have that money to send her, given the current CAD/USD exchange rate.
posted by Kitteh at 4:07 PM on January 18, 2016 [14 favorites]
For the record, the article refers to The Execrable Murray's Coming Apart, discussed in detail in the posts I linked.
Yes, I know. But The Bell Curve alone should make him anathema in any quality publication, at least without a qualifier like "As scholars of family life as politically distinct as Andrew Cherlin and proponent of biological determinism and racism Charles Murray..."
posted by dhens at 4:12 PM on January 18, 2016
Yes, I know. But The Bell Curve alone should make him anathema in any quality publication, at least without a qualifier like "As scholars of family life as politically distinct as Andrew Cherlin and proponent of biological determinism and racism Charles Murray..."
posted by dhens at 4:12 PM on January 18, 2016
tommasz If you think the social safety net is in bad shape now just imagine what the GOP will do to it if they get the White House.
And if the GOP doesn't win the White House it will still be eroded away, just a little more slowly. Never forget that President Obama was all set to cut Social Security benefits by moving it towards the "chained CPI" index.
Really, if a candidate isn't explicitly promising to fight for increases to Social Security benefits (or any other part of the social safety net) I think it can safely be assumed that they'll be "open" to considering whatever cuts the GOP wants.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 4:58 PM on January 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
And if the GOP doesn't win the White House it will still be eroded away, just a little more slowly. Never forget that President Obama was all set to cut Social Security benefits by moving it towards the "chained CPI" index.
Really, if a candidate isn't explicitly promising to fight for increases to Social Security benefits (or any other part of the social safety net) I think it can safely be assumed that they'll be "open" to considering whatever cuts the GOP wants.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 4:58 PM on January 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
It's true that the starving masses won't be able to storm corporate boardrooms or attack the 0.1% in their Mediterranean villas. But they can attack everything else. They can shut down transportation lines, disable airports, and break into any McDonalds full of burger-flipping bots and automatic frymakers and destroy them all. What, is the single human employee left minding the store going to fight them off?
This is what boggles me whenever I hear conservative radio. The same voices who advocate for laissez-faire economics and venerate the "job creators" are, strangely enough, constantly whipping up a "don't tread on me, I'm an American and that means something, I got guns, I don't take sh*t from no man, my reward will be in Heaven" mentality. It's almost as if they're deliberately laying the groundwork for revolution.
Conservatives of the near-future will wonder why, WHY their predecessors urged their poors to hoard guns and have as many hungry children as possible.
This is why the rise of Trump gives me hope. (Not that I really support him.) He's showing just how easy it is to make the poor whites of America forget that they're supposed to be rooting for the Jebs of the world.
posted by ELF Radio at 7:05 PM on January 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
This is what boggles me whenever I hear conservative radio. The same voices who advocate for laissez-faire economics and venerate the "job creators" are, strangely enough, constantly whipping up a "don't tread on me, I'm an American and that means something, I got guns, I don't take sh*t from no man, my reward will be in Heaven" mentality. It's almost as if they're deliberately laying the groundwork for revolution.
Conservatives of the near-future will wonder why, WHY their predecessors urged their poors to hoard guns and have as many hungry children as possible.
This is why the rise of Trump gives me hope. (Not that I really support him.) He's showing just how easy it is to make the poor whites of America forget that they're supposed to be rooting for the Jebs of the world.
posted by ELF Radio at 7:05 PM on January 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
> [...] followed by nationwide preemptive surveillance, arrests, infiltration, agents provocateurs, etc.
you are suggesting these things as if they are not things that are already happening and that is very adorable.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 7:22 PM on January 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
you are suggesting these things as if they are not things that are already happening and that is very adorable.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 7:22 PM on January 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
Come on, You Can't Tip a Buick, next thing you'll be telling me anarchists are people or something.
posted by corb at 9:00 PM on January 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by corb at 9:00 PM on January 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm trying and failing to think of a good joke about Kronstadt. which is sort of like almost existentially disturbing, cause jokes about Kronstadt are basically my whole deal, y'know?
if i can't joke about kronstadt it's not my revolution
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 9:11 PM on January 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
if i can't joke about kronstadt it's not my revolution
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 9:11 PM on January 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Can someone more historically savvy than me please sketch out why today's situation is similar or different to the grain dole and populism in the Roman empire? I can certainly see similarities to the super-rich upper class and how they displaced peasants from the areas around Rome to put in their villas and fruit orchards, and how the displaced ended up as urban poor. Then they grudgingly sold imported grain at subsidized prices to the poor, mostly to stave off food riots.
posted by Harald74 at 12:46 AM on January 19, 2016
posted by Harald74 at 12:46 AM on January 19, 2016
The US economy doesn't exist in a vacuum - while income inequality is bad and social changes seem as destructive as they are liberating, it seems odd that the article doesn't even touch on billions of people who moved from rural peasantry into the factory working class in China. Not to mention the millions in Korea, Vietnam and other developing nations that serve as factories for manufactured goods.
The US has any remaining wealth at all because it's a high-productivity nation. But unless as an individual you can approach that high bar of economic productivity there isn't anything for you to do. It does lead to the arguments for a basic income scheme, but given US politics that's unlikely to happen.
Other than a basic income scheme, if the US wants to revitalize blue collar jobs force Chine to let the Yuan float. When a billion people have their wages kept artificially low due to exchange rate manipulations, there isn't much the average American factory worker can do to keep from losing their job.
posted by GuyZero at 7:19 AM on January 19, 2016
The US has any remaining wealth at all because it's a high-productivity nation. But unless as an individual you can approach that high bar of economic productivity there isn't anything for you to do. It does lead to the arguments for a basic income scheme, but given US politics that's unlikely to happen.
Other than a basic income scheme, if the US wants to revitalize blue collar jobs force Chine to let the Yuan float. When a billion people have their wages kept artificially low due to exchange rate manipulations, there isn't much the average American factory worker can do to keep from losing their job.
posted by GuyZero at 7:19 AM on January 19, 2016
It's almost as if they're deliberately laying the groundwork for revolution.
Almost as if?
posted by blucevalo at 8:27 AM on January 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
Almost as if?
posted by blucevalo at 8:27 AM on January 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
srsly though sometimes when I get cornered by a dude who thinks accelerationism is cool, I have trouble identifying the difference between the accelerationist program and what capital is already doing.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 8:44 AM on January 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 8:44 AM on January 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
If the right-wing media are laying the groundwork for revolution, it makes you wonder what comes next. Do the Kochs, Murdoch et al. have a plan to pivot and become the Bolsheviks who seize the post-revolutionary order and ruthlessly purge anyone who had hoped to replace late-stage capitalism with something nicer than totalitarian feudalism?
posted by acb at 9:17 AM on January 19, 2016
posted by acb at 9:17 AM on January 19, 2016
It's such a breath of fresh air to find a mainstream article on the plight of the working class that understands the degree to which unions and other community-based organizations weave together some form of a social safety net, and so distressing that SCOTUS seems on the verge of gutting one of the last remaining advocates for many working Americans.
posted by mostly vowels at 10:08 AM on January 19, 2016
posted by mostly vowels at 10:08 AM on January 19, 2016
I feel like Obama missed his chance to create a new WPA when he first hit office.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:33 AM on January 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:33 AM on January 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
I feel like Obama missed his chance to create a new WPA when he first hit office.
Yeah, no. If you think the ACA was tough sledding, a new WPA would have been even harder. I can't imagine he'd have even gotten 50 votes in the Senate for it, much less the 60 that would be needed to overcome a certain GOP filibuster.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:45 AM on January 19, 2016
Yeah, no. If you think the ACA was tough sledding, a new WPA would have been even harder. I can't imagine he'd have even gotten 50 votes in the Senate for it, much less the 60 that would be needed to overcome a certain GOP filibuster.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:45 AM on January 19, 2016
I feel like the WPA would have been an easier sell. I mean, it's kind of bootstrappy enough to appeal to R and poor-aiding enough to sell to D.
posted by corb at 10:48 AM on January 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by corb at 10:48 AM on January 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
Corb, if you like the WPA, then you'd really love the Job Guarantee.
The idea that there isn't enough work to do for people anymore is ridiculous-- I ride the subway in San Francisco and NYC all the time and they are filthy. Public transit everywhere seems to have the same problems. Plenty of jobs there to clean the trains and stations. Also childcare, elder care, etc, those still require actual people to do the work. But, ROBOTS say the futurists with the Chrome messenger bags and iPads. Sure, fine, one day, robots will do it, but for now? Someone still has to change a bedpan for grandpa and watch a baby while her parents are at work.
On a much bigger scale, we're faced with the problem of going off fossil fuels and transitioning to a 100% renewable economy, something that is possible right now. Obviously that's a whole lot of labor involved.
posted by wuwei at 11:26 AM on January 19, 2016 [5 favorites]
The conventional approach of fiscal policy is to create jobs by boosting private investment and growth. This approach is backward, says Research Associate Pavlina R. Tcherneva. Policy must begin by fixing the unemployment situation because growth is a byproduct of strong employment—not the other way around. Tcherneva proposes a bottom-up approach based on community programs that can be implemented at all phases of the business cycle; that is, a grass-roots job-guarantee program run by the nonprofit sector (with participation by the social entrepreneurial sector) but financed by the government. A job-guarantee program would lead to full employment over the long run and address an outstanding fault of modern market economies.I really prefer the job guarantee over a basic income for a whole bunch of reasons, and if you find this interesting, there's also a job guarantee vs basic income debate which you can watch here: Income For All: Two Visions of a New Economy.
The idea that there isn't enough work to do for people anymore is ridiculous-- I ride the subway in San Francisco and NYC all the time and they are filthy. Public transit everywhere seems to have the same problems. Plenty of jobs there to clean the trains and stations. Also childcare, elder care, etc, those still require actual people to do the work. But, ROBOTS say the futurists with the Chrome messenger bags and iPads. Sure, fine, one day, robots will do it, but for now? Someone still has to change a bedpan for grandpa and watch a baby while her parents are at work.
On a much bigger scale, we're faced with the problem of going off fossil fuels and transitioning to a 100% renewable economy, something that is possible right now. Obviously that's a whole lot of labor involved.
posted by wuwei at 11:26 AM on January 19, 2016 [5 favorites]
I feel like the WPA would have been an easier sell.
I think it would have taken a much better salesman than Obama to sell a Federal WPA to the half of the country that doesn't even believe in the necessity of government. While I had some hope of the same thing at time, I thought it was unlikely then and it seems even more unlikely from the perspective of post-Tea Party-crazed 2016.
This is why the rise of Trump gives me hope. (Not that I really support him.) He's showing just how easy it is to make the poor whites of America forget that they're supposed to be rooting for the Jebs of the world.
A) He hasn't done anything yet and B) it's always easier to make people want to tear shit down than build it up (i.e., Waldo). Trump's "revolution"—if it ever comes to that—won't be a hippie-peacenik-Bernie-Sanders-love-in, it'll be a gun-wielding, God-obsessed, science-fearing, culture-hating spasm of rage. I think I'd even take Jeb! over that.
posted by octobersurprise at 12:00 PM on January 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think it would have taken a much better salesman than Obama to sell a Federal WPA to the half of the country that doesn't even believe in the necessity of government. While I had some hope of the same thing at time, I thought it was unlikely then and it seems even more unlikely from the perspective of post-Tea Party-crazed 2016.
This is why the rise of Trump gives me hope. (Not that I really support him.) He's showing just how easy it is to make the poor whites of America forget that they're supposed to be rooting for the Jebs of the world.
A) He hasn't done anything yet and B) it's always easier to make people want to tear shit down than build it up (i.e., Waldo). Trump's "revolution"—if it ever comes to that—won't be a hippie-peacenik-Bernie-Sanders-love-in, it'll be a gun-wielding, God-obsessed, science-fearing, culture-hating spasm of rage. I think I'd even take Jeb! over that.
posted by octobersurprise at 12:00 PM on January 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
I feel like the WPA would have been an easier sell. I mean, it's kind of bootstrappy enough to appeal to R and poor-aiding enough to sell to D.
The bar for "easier sell" is pretty low, namely, that it would have gotten a non-zero number of GOP votes. Let's see how realistic that is.
The best template we have is the $787 billion ARRA of 2009, of which only about 10% was infrastructure and another 10% was "employment" generally speaking, so let's be generous and say that was $150 billion in new funding (or about 1% of GDP) that put people to work (the rest went to tax cuts and other aid to states.) For all that supposedly bootstrappy goodness, and even with more than a third of the total program being made up of tax cuts, ARRA got a total of three GOP votes in the Senate (one of which was Arlen Specter who became a Democrat later that year) and a big fat zero in the house.
Let's compare that to the WPA. The price tag on the WPA was about $11 billion in total funding over the lifetime of the program, or... almost exactly $150,000,000 in today's dollars, but given the much smaller size of the US economy, that represented more than 5 percent of GDP, or five times the size of the ARRA's infrastructure and employment programs. Even when counting the tax cuts and other aid to states, as that same link points out, the WPA was five times the size of the ARRA as a percentage of federal revenues.
So, with all of that in mind, do you have the names of Republicans who would have voted to increase the size of the federal government to pay people to build roads and bridges? I can't see that hypothetical rpogram getting a single GOP vote, not even from Collins and Snowe.
posted by tonycpsu at 12:26 PM on January 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
The bar for "easier sell" is pretty low, namely, that it would have gotten a non-zero number of GOP votes. Let's see how realistic that is.
The best template we have is the $787 billion ARRA of 2009, of which only about 10% was infrastructure and another 10% was "employment" generally speaking, so let's be generous and say that was $150 billion in new funding (or about 1% of GDP) that put people to work (the rest went to tax cuts and other aid to states.) For all that supposedly bootstrappy goodness, and even with more than a third of the total program being made up of tax cuts, ARRA got a total of three GOP votes in the Senate (one of which was Arlen Specter who became a Democrat later that year) and a big fat zero in the house.
Let's compare that to the WPA. The price tag on the WPA was about $11 billion in total funding over the lifetime of the program, or... almost exactly $150,000,000 in today's dollars, but given the much smaller size of the US economy, that represented more than 5 percent of GDP, or five times the size of the ARRA's infrastructure and employment programs. Even when counting the tax cuts and other aid to states, as that same link points out, the WPA was five times the size of the ARRA as a percentage of federal revenues.
So, with all of that in mind, do you have the names of Republicans who would have voted to increase the size of the federal government to pay people to build roads and bridges? I can't see that hypothetical rpogram getting a single GOP vote, not even from Collins and Snowe.
posted by tonycpsu at 12:26 PM on January 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
Rick Perlstein, who is usually sharply on-point, argues a similar point (that we could have gotten more from the early Obama administration) in this new piece: Obama, Transformed: Thinking about the President he might have been. The argument is less about the transactional details and more about the use (or non-use) of the bully pulpit to move public opinion.
This is an ongoing central debate in the Democratic party, even in the current primary. Is the President's primary role to craft 5-point plans that are perfectly calibrated and compromised to suit the current political climate, or is it to use the bully pulpit to change the current political climate by advocating for best-case policies that fully fit their values and negotiating from that position? I really think most Obama voters thought they were voting for the latter when they went to the polls.
Again, we're basically having the same argument in the Democratic primary now. Should we pre-compromise our values with what we expect will be a very unfriendly congress, or is there any point in trying to trying to change the political climate to make our more preferred policies more plausible, either by advocating for our ideas or by expanding the voting base? Is assuming that we will have to essentially enact a centrist-right agenda - even in the Democratic party primary! - a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy?
posted by dialetheia at 12:48 PM on January 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
This is an ongoing central debate in the Democratic party, even in the current primary. Is the President's primary role to craft 5-point plans that are perfectly calibrated and compromised to suit the current political climate, or is it to use the bully pulpit to change the current political climate by advocating for best-case policies that fully fit their values and negotiating from that position? I really think most Obama voters thought they were voting for the latter when they went to the polls.
Again, we're basically having the same argument in the Democratic primary now. Should we pre-compromise our values with what we expect will be a very unfriendly congress, or is there any point in trying to trying to change the political climate to make our more preferred policies more plausible, either by advocating for our ideas or by expanding the voting base? Is assuming that we will have to essentially enact a centrist-right agenda - even in the Democratic party primary! - a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy?
posted by dialetheia at 12:48 PM on January 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
I feel like the WPA would have been an easier sell. I mean, it's kind of bootstrappy enough to appeal to R and poor-aiding enough to sell to D.
Considering that the Rs we've had in office for the last 7 years would question the existence of gravity itself if the Obama administration put forth an affirmative position on it, I wouldn't count on any commitment to bootstrappy principles here. Especially from people who by their own admission want to metaphorically drown the government in a bathtub.
posted by Strange Interlude at 1:34 PM on January 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
Considering that the Rs we've had in office for the last 7 years would question the existence of gravity itself if the Obama administration put forth an affirmative position on it, I wouldn't count on any commitment to bootstrappy principles here. Especially from people who by their own admission want to metaphorically drown the government in a bathtub.
posted by Strange Interlude at 1:34 PM on January 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
Great post dialethia, it's a good description of the conversation right now. For a microcosm of it, look at Hillary spending an entire primary debate arguing against a medicare for all system because it would be impossible to pass.
As if anything particularly good of any kind she is proposing could actually pass either. Republicans are in a pass nothing mood and have no reason to stop. Might as well have more ambitious plans not pass before we compromise to whatever shitty bill to keep the government going for another month we end up with.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:13 PM on January 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
As if anything particularly good of any kind she is proposing could actually pass either. Republicans are in a pass nothing mood and have no reason to stop. Might as well have more ambitious plans not pass before we compromise to whatever shitty bill to keep the government going for another month we end up with.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:13 PM on January 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
Great post dialethia, it's a good description of the conversation right now. For a microcosm of it, look at Hillary spending an entire primary debate arguing against a medicare for all system because it would be impossible to pass.
Why Precisely Is Bernie Sanders Against Reparations?
Why Precisely Is Bernie Sanders Against Reparations?
Last week Bernie Sanders was asked whether he was in favor of “reparations for slavery.” It is worth considering Sanders’s response in full:posted by the man of twists and turns at 3:02 PM on January 19, 2016 [1 favorite]No, I don’t think so. First of all, its likelihood of getting through Congress is nil. Second of all, I think it would be very divisive. The real issue is when we look at the poverty rate among the African American community, when we look at the high unemployment rate within the African American community, we have a lot of work to do.
I tend to agree with the core of Coates' argument, and I'm in favor of reparations too. I really think both Clinton and Sanders ought to address it.
But it's worth making the distinction that single-payer health care is supported by a majority of Americans, even if it's politically infeasible, while reparations (at least from the most recent polling I could find) are only supported by 15% of Americans. While I would absolutely love to see one of the candidates argue for reparations, it makes sense to me to continue championing issues that enjoy broad popular support (like single-payer health care and free college tuition) but seem nearly impossible to implement at the moment because of gridlock, corporate money, or right-wing framing.
I agree that I would love to see them address reparations, but I don't think it's fair to take Sanders' policies and declare them all equally unworkable and impossible when the majority of Americans support most of it. It's impossible because our political system can't translate what Americans want into policy, not because people don't support those policies. When asked directly, the majority of Americans want Medicare for all and free college tuition. As much as I wish it were otherwise, the same is not true of reparations. Again, that doesn't mean they shouldn't support it! Just that I don't think "he supports these other unworkable policies, so he should support everything" is as convincing.
posted by dialetheia at 3:27 PM on January 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
But it's worth making the distinction that single-payer health care is supported by a majority of Americans, even if it's politically infeasible, while reparations (at least from the most recent polling I could find) are only supported by 15% of Americans. While I would absolutely love to see one of the candidates argue for reparations, it makes sense to me to continue championing issues that enjoy broad popular support (like single-payer health care and free college tuition) but seem nearly impossible to implement at the moment because of gridlock, corporate money, or right-wing framing.
I agree that I would love to see them address reparations, but I don't think it's fair to take Sanders' policies and declare them all equally unworkable and impossible when the majority of Americans support most of it. It's impossible because our political system can't translate what Americans want into policy, not because people don't support those policies. When asked directly, the majority of Americans want Medicare for all and free college tuition. As much as I wish it were otherwise, the same is not true of reparations. Again, that doesn't mean they shouldn't support it! Just that I don't think "he supports these other unworkable policies, so he should support everything" is as convincing.
posted by dialetheia at 3:27 PM on January 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
dialetheia, I generally find Rick Perlstein to be among the most astute political observers, but I do think his argument about Obama is kind of a mess. Electoral landslides and approval ratings don't get policy passed, and while the much-ballyhooed bully pulpit can help to set the agenda and push things through at the margins, it can't actually marshal public support in a way that puts enough pressure on legislators, who have very little chance of losing their seat in most districts. The support has to be there, and it has to be a "vote this way or I'll vote you out" kind of issue to actually scare the legislators. Keep in mind, we hadn't really seen a wave election like 2010 at the time when Perlstein wanted Obama to be issuing "I welcome their hatred" speeches, and that the wave itself was in many ways a reaction to his quarter-of-a-loaf efforts.
It also must be noted that he spent more time arguing with his own party than he did with Democrats during the first half of his first term. It's kind of hard to hit the pavement and talk to Americans about how the GOP isn't being supportive enough when he had Joe Lieberman and Blanche Lincoln stabbing him in the back.
(Also, those poll results you cited are for a single-payer public option, not single-payer writ large. Support for eliminating private insurance and going to Medicare for all / single payer is not nearly as strong.)
So yeah, you should never negotiate with yourself and pre-concede things before the debate has opened, but I think there's also a lot of loss of fidelity when people look at these things retrospectively. The fact that Bill Clinton was able to face down the threat of a government shutdown has very little bearing on what the political situation was like for Obama in 2009, so Perlstein's notion that Obama was insufficiently bold strikes me as wishful thinking at odds with what we know the situation was.
posted by tonycpsu at 3:40 PM on January 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
It also must be noted that he spent more time arguing with his own party than he did with Democrats during the first half of his first term. It's kind of hard to hit the pavement and talk to Americans about how the GOP isn't being supportive enough when he had Joe Lieberman and Blanche Lincoln stabbing him in the back.
(Also, those poll results you cited are for a single-payer public option, not single-payer writ large. Support for eliminating private insurance and going to Medicare for all / single payer is not nearly as strong.)
So yeah, you should never negotiate with yourself and pre-concede things before the debate has opened, but I think there's also a lot of loss of fidelity when people look at these things retrospectively. The fact that Bill Clinton was able to face down the threat of a government shutdown has very little bearing on what the political situation was like for Obama in 2009, so Perlstein's notion that Obama was insufficiently bold strikes me as wishful thinking at odds with what we know the situation was.
posted by tonycpsu at 3:40 PM on January 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm not a Bernie supporter either TMOTAT. "It won't pass," is a bad reason to oppose a policy for anyone, but a good reason to say, "It can't pass."
Hillary took that further will bullshit implications like that Sanders might allow the Republicans to repeal Obamacare. The willingness to engage in such a dirty, idiotic, fearmongering attack in the name of attacking his plan for universal healthcare is....I don't even have the words. A reason among many I will never vote for her under any circumstances.
posted by Drinky Die at 4:50 PM on January 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
Hillary took that further will bullshit implications like that Sanders might allow the Republicans to repeal Obamacare. The willingness to engage in such a dirty, idiotic, fearmongering attack in the name of attacking his plan for universal healthcare is....I don't even have the words. A reason among many I will never vote for her under any circumstances.
posted by Drinky Die at 4:50 PM on January 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
Those circumstances include a Republican in the White House, nominations to the Supreme Court, and resulting utter dismantling of even moderate protections for women and/or people of colour and/or gender or sexual minorities and/or poor people.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 7:22 PM on January 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 7:22 PM on January 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
-Politics and the Future
-Interactive: A new look at who earns what in the United States
-How Soon Before Your Job Is Done By A Robot? This Handy Chart Will Tell You
-Kids Are Scared Of A Future Where Robots Take All Their Jobs
-MLK advocates for Guaranteed Income at Stanford (1967) [1,2,3]
posted by kliuless at 11:19 AM on January 20, 2016
-Interactive: A new look at who earns what in the United States
-How Soon Before Your Job Is Done By A Robot? This Handy Chart Will Tell You
-Kids Are Scared Of A Future Where Robots Take All Their Jobs
-MLK advocates for Guaranteed Income at Stanford (1967) [1,2,3]
posted by kliuless at 11:19 AM on January 20, 2016
Robert Reich: Who Lost the White Working Class? - "they've done nothing to change the vicious cycle of wealth and power that has rigged the economy for the benefit of those at the top, and undermined the working class. In some respects, Democrats have been complicit..." (via)
posted by kliuless at 8:11 AM on January 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by kliuless at 8:11 AM on January 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
« Older White ally background material for anti-racism in... | Newly Discovered 1964 MLK Speech Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Shouraku at 12:09 PM on January 18, 2016