Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

What sebby is saying is the lower end of income end of white voters ware the rapid Trump people. That’s all.

That is hard to square with the actual data, which is that Biden won people with income of less than $100K by double digits, while Trump won people with income of more than that by double digits.

Take voters who make less than $50K. Biden won them 55-44. Assume, generously, that a fifth of those voters aren't white, and that every single of one of those voters went for Biden. Take away a fifth of Biden's 55%, and you end up with a tie. That's not rabid Trump people.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

That is hard to square with the actual data, which is that Biden won people with income of less than $100K by double digits, while Trump won people with income of more than that by double digits.

Take voters who make less than $50K. Biden won them 55-44. Assume, generously, that a fifth of those voters aren't white, and that every single of one of those voters went for Biden. Take away a fifth of Biden's 55%, and you end up with a tie. That's not rabid Trump people.

My gawd I made a lot of typos in that post. You know how college sorority sisters synch their periods? Maybe being around Adder so much is making me do more typos?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

That is hard to square with the actual data, which is that Biden won people with income of less than $100K by double digits, while Trump won people with income of more than that by double digits.

Take voters who make less than $50K. Biden won them 55-44. Assume, generously, that a fifth of those voters aren't white, and that every single of one of those voters went for Biden. Take away a fifth of Biden's 55%, and you end up with a tie. That's not rabid Trump people.

I never respond to the same post twice, but you do realize exit polls are closer to anecdotes (which flower criticized) than data?

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

That is hard to square with the actual data, which is that Biden won people with income of less than $100K by double digits, while Trump won people with income of more than that by double digits.

Take voters who make less than $50K. Biden won them 55-44. Assume, generously, that a fifth of those voters aren't white, and that every single of one of those voters went for Biden. Take away a fifth of Biden's 55%, and you end up with a tie. That's not rabid Trump people.

It's not about income. It's about older (mostly white) people and their fear.

LessinLiverpool

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

It's not about income. It's about older (mostly white) people and their fear.

LessinLiverpool

I’ve heard them described as Upper Precariat. They are in fact economically downtrodden. One job loss or layoff away from disaster.

Of course, a lot of people are in that situation. There’s a story on Reuters right now about how 30% of people making $200k are living paycheck to paycheck.

But I think the Trump households are more in the $50k to $120k range. One job loss and junior doesn’t have any college funds. I think a lot of them are borrowed to the tits and cash flow is essential.

They aren’t the desperate poor, but they’re hanging on by their nails. My guess is there’s a lotta fungible middle managers and professionals in MAGA nation.

You can see a version of their fate play out in law firm layoffs. You see these lawyers who lose a job and just vanish. They go from decently paid to long term unemployed overnight. No book, no value. What’s a middle aged middle manager got to offer the job market? Not much.

MAGAland bought a bullshit story about the American Dream early in their careers, but it hasn’t been reading the papers over the past 30 years. Unless you were utterly clueless and terrifically uninformed, you could see all of this precariousness coming. Shit, Ross Perot warned MAGAland of the “great sucking sound” back in 1992.

So yeah, they’re downtrodden. They’re scared, and I don’t think they’ve the skills to sell or the ability to pivot to other careers as private equity buys their employers, rolls them up, and downsizes them.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I’ve heard them described as Upper Precariat. They are in fact economically downtrodden. One job loss or layoff away from disaster.

Of course, a lot of people are in that situation. There’s a story on Reuters right now about how 30% of people making $200k are living paycheck to paycheck.

But I think the Trump households are more in the $50k to $120k range. One job loss and junior doesn’t have any college funds. I think a lot of them are borrowed to the tits and cash flow is essential.

They aren’t the desperate poor, but they’re hanging on by their nails. My guess is there’s a lotta fungible middle managers and professionals in MAGA nation.

You can see a version of their fate play out in law firm layoffs. You see these lawyers who lose a job and just vanish. They go from decently paid to long term unemployed overnight. No book, no value. What’s a middle aged middle manager got to offer the job market? Not much.

MAGAland bought a bullshit story about the American Dream early in their careers, but it hasn’t been reading the papers over the past 30 years. Unless you were utterly clueless and terrifically uninformed, you could see all of this precariousness coming. Shit, Ross Perot warned MAGAland of the “great sucking sound” back in 1992.

So yeah, they’re downtrodden. They’re scared, and I don’t think they’ve the skills to sell or the ability to pivot to other careers as private equity buys their employers, rolls them up, and downsizes them.

It's lovely description of how people with more money are in fact the downtrodden, but if, by your take, Trump voters are downtrodden, then Biden voters are even more downtrodden, and the word becomes meaningless.

You have exquisite sensitivity for the economic pain of the more affluent people who support Trump, but ignore the economic pain of the less affluent people who support Biden.

Downtrodden my ass.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

It's lovely description of how people with more money are in fact the downtrodden, but if, by your take, Trump voters are downtrodden, then Biden voters are even more downtrodden, and the word becomes meaningless.

You have exquisite sensitivity for the economic pain of the more affluent people who support Trump, but ignore the economic pain of the less affluent people who support Biden.

Downtrodden my ass.

Sensitivity? I just described them as clueless and credulous.

I also noted that they are not the most downtrodden in borrowing the descriptive “Upper Precariat.”

If you’re in constant fear of being downsized, you’re in a bad place. Pick an adjective.

You just want to call them all racists. I actually agree many of them are. But as I noted earlier, the interplay between economic anxiety and racist attitudes is complex. You’d rather see it bluntly, call them all racists and being done with it. This of course allows you to avoid the discussion of how neoliberalism is one of the biggest causes of Trumpism.

Your version of capitalism is, “Fuck the middle; charity for the bottom.” That’s fine. I don’t really give a fuck because I don’t think the situation is solvable. But at least I own that corner. You want to be an apologist for monopolies and neoliberal polices that fuck the poor and the middle and absolve yourself of being selfish by saying “I’m in favor of greater redistribution…”. That’s crumbs for the desperate. And your bullshit in that regard is the definition of transparent.

You’re as selfish as any of the rest of us, including me.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Sensitivity? I just described them as clueless and credulous.

I also noted that they are not the most downtrodden in borrowing the descriptive “Upper Precariat.”

If you’re in constant fear of being downsized, you’re in a bad place. Pick an adjective.

You just want to call them all racists. I actually agree many of them are. But as I noted earlier, the interplay between economic anxiety and racist attitudes is complex. You’d rather see it bluntly, call them all racists and being done with it. This of course allows you to avoid the discussion of how neoliberalism is one of the biggest causes of Trumpism.

Your version of capitalism is, “Fuck the middle; charity for the bottom.” That’s fine. I don’t really give a fuck because I don’t think the situation is solvable. But at least I own that corner. You want to be an apologist for monopolies and neoliberal polices that fuck the poor and the middle and absolve yourself of being selfish by saying “I’m in favor of greater redistribution…”. That’s crumbs for the desperate. And your bullshit in that regard is the definition of transparent.

You’re as selfish as any of the rest of us, including me.

Stop changing the subject. Here's Adder's post that you and Hank objected to:

Originally Posted by Adder

Someone with your track record should be very careful about typing those words. You only think you're correct because of your incorrect stereotype of who the Trump backers are.

They are not the economically downtrodden. They are just white people.

Adder was right. Trump's supporters are not "the economically downtrodden." Do they have grievances? Sure? Plenty of people have grievances and aren't the economically downtrodden. Elon Musk for example. Might they feel economically vulnerable? Sure, who doesn't? It is very clear that support for Trump generally correlates with income, not the reverse. If you look at the population and try to figure out where Trump's support is, it is exactly *not* the economically downtrodden.

Among other things, I think it's hysterical that you think I'm an apologist for monopolies. But that's a whole different conversation.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Stop changing the subject. Here's Adder's post that you and Hank objected to:



Adder was right. Trump's supporters are not "the economically downtrodden." Do they have grievances? Sure? Plenty of people have grievances and aren't the economically downtrodden. Elon Musk for example. Might they feel economically vulnerable? Sure, who doesn't? It is very clear that support for Trump generally correlates with income, not the reverse. If you look at the population and try to figure out where Trump's support is, it is exactly *not* the economically downtrodden.

Among other things, I think it's hysterical that you think I'm an apologist for monopolies. But that's a whole different conversation.

You’re right. It’s Adder’s argument to which I was responding. You did not suggest the racial angle. He did.

My bad. Sorry for attributing his position to you.

You defended certain of the FAANGS in prior conversations about them being monopolies.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

It's not about income. It's about older (mostly white) people and their fear.

LessinLiverpool

Agree that it's about other things, but those things correlate with income.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Agree that it's about other things, but those things correlate with income.

So you're saying as rich as these guys are money mangers, and for that matter, since they're old, estate lawyers should be hanging around the courthouse?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

So you're saying as rich as these guys are money mangers, and for that matter, since they're old, estate lawyers should be hanging around the courthouse?

No, you asshat, I'm talking about his support more generally. That's as stupid as thinking that global warming is falsified by cold day in winter.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

It's not about income. It's about older (mostly white) people and their fear.

LessinLiverpool

Generally I agree with this, even while acknowledging that Ty is right on the numbers.

If you look at things like Trump's inroads in the Hispanic community, which still votes Democratic on the whole but has been giving Rs an increasing share in key places, you will see a variety of historical fears, ranging from the anti-communism of Cubans to worries about immigration from newer groups of immigrants to concerns about women getting uppity, and you'll see a whole lot of Catholicism, too. Sure, the inroads are first and foremost among the most established and well to do, but they don't stop there.

That said, for a discussion about statistical stuff like what income brackets support Trumpists, there is a real lack of actual stats in the discussion itself (though Ty links to some of it).

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Generally I agree with this, even while acknowledging that Ty is right on the numbers.

If you look at things like Trump's inroads in the Hispanic community, which still votes Democratic on the whole but has been giving Rs an increasing share in key places, you will see a variety of historical fears, ranging from the anti-communism of Cubans to worries about immigration from newer groups of immigrants to concerns about women getting uppity, and you'll see a whole lot of Catholicism, too. Sure, the inroads are first and foremost among the most established and well to do, but they don't stop there.

That said, for a discussion about statistical stuff like what income brackets support Trumpists, there is a real lack of actual stats in the discussion itself (though Ty links to some of it).

I do not think broad datasets can draw an appropriate picture, or even operate as a poor heuristic to generalize about 70 million people.

But since Ty insists, consider this. If the best gauge of racist sentiment on this list is immigration, which is true, it still ranks 14 percent below the economy. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics...2016-election/

Interestingly, if one looks up economic anxiety and Trump voters, the same limited blunt data are cited in almost every article. The pieces, many of which plagiarize from or link each other, are more editorial than objective. The starting line is an almost insistent and scolding, or gleeful, assertion that it was all racism or status concerns. Even though the most generous assessment of the data suggests it’s a mixed bag of many causes, including economic anxiety and racism.

Me thinks “journalism” may be institutionally/intellectually captured by the Chicago School, today known as Neoliberalism. To test this theory, suggest to a Neoliberal that racism is a very real and acute problem, but is also being used to divert attention from economic causes of dysfunction and inequality in society. You’ll get a very defensive response.

Idk why Neoliberals don’t like being called out for what they are - a mix of limousine liberal, libertarian bro, Milton Friedman disciple, and superficial bleeding heart.

All men are hypocrites. Call me a Neoliberal. I’ve been called worse.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I do not think broad datasets can draw an appropriate picture, or even operate as a poor heuristic to generalize about 70 million people.

But since Ty insists, consider this. If the best gauge of racist sentiment on this list is immigration, which is true, it still ranks 14 percent below the economy. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics...2016-election/

Interestingly, if one looks up economic anxiety and Trump voters, the same limited blunt data are cited in almost every article. The pieces, many of which plagiarize from or link each other, are more editorial than objective. The starting line is an almost insistent and scolding, or gleeful, assertion that it was all racism or status concerns. Even though the most generous assessment of the data suggests it’s a mixed bag of many causes, including economic anxiety and racism.

Me thinks “journalism” may be institutionally/intellectually captured by the Chicago School, today known as Neoliberalism. To test this theory, suggest to a Neoliberal that racism is a very real and acute problem, but is also being used to divert attention from economic causes of dysfunction and inequality in society. You’ll get a very defensive response.

Idk why Neoliberals don’t like being called out for what they are - a mix of limousine liberal, libertarian bro, Milton Friedman disciple, and superficial bleeding heart.

All men are hypocrites. Call me a Neoliberal. I’ve been called worse.

Wow, you don't use stats much, do you? I'm going to ignore all the strange data usage and focus on the substantive issue here.

One of the funny uses of a lot of data on economic anxiety is that people tend to use self-reported "concerns", as in the Pew survey, as a way of conflating worries about inflation and worries about unemployment, treating a bank CEO's worries about worker shortages as equivalent to his employee's concerns about getting laid off. The economy is a huge category that encompasses many often conflicting concerns, and so will always be on and near the top of the list. Immigration is a much narrower policy, and the fact that there is so much concern over a narrow policy set is an indication of a pretty unusual state of affairs.

But that particular survey doesn't hit all sorts of other issues. There is no question designed to ferret out a rise in white supremacy, an increase in anti-semitism, or any of the other concerns that I see motivating a lot of Republicans these days. You need a different data set to look at those issues. Given the ability of a narrow set of the electorate, to control a political party because of the intensity and focus of their concerns, and the general lack of motivation of most of the electorate, the presence of even 10% of the population, concentrating in more conservative states, signing up for white supremacism has a huge impact on the country.