4 ms·

> Instead of just yelling bigot/racist/etc., I think Trump's opposition needs to actually listen and see what people are really seeing in him. Here. Let me tel

by api 10y ago

> Instead of just yelling bigot/racist/etc., I think Trump's opposition needs to actually listen and see what people are really seeing in him. Here. Let me tell you what people see in him. He's bringing up the issue of labor arbitrage. That's the beginning and the end of it. Anyone who talks about Trump without looking at that issue is absolutely clueless (IMHO). The reason for this cluelessness is that most pundits are in "alpha cities" like NYC, DC, SF, LA, etc., and these cities with their financial and higher-tech industries have been spared the economic hollowing out that has occurred elsewhere. They don't see it because in their back yard the economy looks okay. "Why do they not eat cake?" they ask. It's really that bad. Yes there are some people who support him because of his thinly veiled racism, but they are a minority. I know a bunch of Trump supporters back where I grew up (Ohio) and every single one of them talks about outsourcing, outsourcing, and outsourcing, in roughly that order. Most of them are not people I consider particularly racist or anti-immigrant or anti-gay, or at least those are not issues they care deeply about. Many are not religious. They also don't talk much about the Islamic immigration terrorist fear bogey man. They might feel that way a bit, but it's also not a big deal compared to outsourcing. Not even close. ... and as much as I can't stand Trump and would never vote for him for many reasons, I have to kind of agree on this point -- but with a lot of caveats. American (and European) industry has for the past 25+ years been forced to compete with industry in countries where there are no environmental regulations, no minimum wage, no OSHA, and no labor laws or worker rights. (Or so little of those things that it's a joke.) I am very much in favor of free fair trade (and immigration to a point), but this is not fair trade. Basically US and EU corporations have been allowed for the past 25-30 years to leverage the Chinese PLA's billion-strong totalitarian labor camp as a long arm to smash domestic labor. It worked. Wages are stagnant, unions are dead, and vast swaths of the American interior are in a state of near collapse. It's painful every time I go home to Cincinnati, Ohio (where I grew up) and see the effects of this: massive (and understated) unemployment, crumbling infrastructure, alcoholism and drug addiction everywhere (a strong comorbidity with economic malaise), and a general hovering sense of rage that last time I was there I found vaguely foreboding. It reminds me a lot of what I've read about Russia post-USSR-collapse. I live in California now and I feel a little bit like an expat who has fled a dying nation, but who still feels a sense of cultural affinity and loyalty. I wish I could go home sometimes but I want my children to grow up in the first world. What's scary is that Cincinnati is not by any stretch the worst-off place. It has several healthy employers and many very nice neighborhoods. Look at St. Louis, Cleveland, Flint, etc. Some of the interior is nearing collapse-of-civilization levels of decline. "Don't drink the water" is usually a warning we reserve for third world countries. Trump is winning because he talks about this. Meanwhile his opponents don't bring it up or even acknowledge its existence except in vague milquetoast "Wall St. vs Main Street" terms. It's not a slight problem. It's a crisis. Not mentioning it as such is insulting to all the people who are affected by it. (I don't think unfair labor arbitrage is its only cause, but it's definitely a significant contributor.) Edit: See also: https://morecrows.wordpress.com/2016/05/10/unnecessariat/ https://morecrows.wordpress.com/2016/05/10/unnecessariat/

humanrebar 10y ago
> Many are not religious. Do people think Trump voters are religious? While it was still a competitive race, Cruz and Rubio beat Trump among religious voters easily. Trump wins people who check 'religious' in the survey and otherwise participate minimally in organized religion. I predict that active evangelicals will mostly stay home in November since there's not a credible pro-life candidate on the ballot.
throwawaybrexit 10y ago
This is a great post and describes exactly how I feel as a fellow "expatriate" in California. I've had people comment when they hear where I'm from, "well it's good thing you don't have that accent." There's so much animus towards people in these regions and it looks exactly like the contempt the upper class has for the poor. It’s pretty disgusting how blatant some of this contempt is (Look no further than Salon, Huffington Post, ...). We can't forget about these people. And it's important to remember that these aren't hard working, enterprising people (as some say). But that we've simply criminalized their labor. We enforce labor standards and environmental standards high on our own companies (things I applaud), but are happy to import products not built under those same standards. We enforce free trade agreements, which make it impossible to oppose the flood of cheap products, but we've legislated higher costs for our own products. (This is also why these parts of the country have for so long voted for politicians who promised to remove or decrease this regulatory burden -- you may think they are voting agains their own interest, but they do not perceived it that way.)
slg 10y ago
Firstly, I don't think you can dismiss the racism/bigotry of a candidate like that. When even some of his supporters are calling him out for racism, it is hard to argue that it isn't an aspect of his platform. I personally feel that should be enough to eliminate him from holding an office like the presidency regardless of his legitimate ideologies. The objective truth is that globalization and labor arbitrage overall produce value. That is why we are seeing markets around the world react negatively to the UK's decision. Global economies will work less efficiently in a world in which the UK is not part of the EU. However as a society we are doing a bad job of distributing the increased value that comes from globalization. Int is true that the way we are distributing the value is leaving the people you are talking about worse even off than before. That is the problem and it will only get worse as other countries continue to develop and more jobs are taken over by automation. The way to solve the problem is not to roll back progress and retreat back into isolationism. That would leave society as a whole worse off. The answer is to continue to encourage progress but increase redistribution efforts to help the people who are left behind. It is simple math really. Imagine a scenario before globalization where person X has $10 and person Y has $30. Now after globalization person X has $5 and person Y has $40. Person X would clearly be angry about this development but that doesn't mean the solution is to revert everything to how it was before globalization. The answer is to take somewhere between $5 and $10 from person Y and give it to person X. That way everyone is better off than before and we all benefit from progress.

by api 10y ago

humanrebar 10y ago

> Many are not religious. Do people think Trump voters are religious? While it was still a competitive race, Cruz and Rubio beat Trump among religious voters easily. Trump wins people who check 'religious' in the survey and otherwise participate minimally in organized religion. I predict that active evangelicals will mostly stay home in November since there's not a credible pro-life candidate on the ballot.

throwawaybrexit 10y ago

This is a great post and describes exactly how I feel as a fellow "expatriate" in California. I've had people comment when they hear where I'm from, "well it's good thing you don't have that accent." There's so much animus towards people in these regions and it looks exactly like the contempt the upper class has for the poor. It’s pretty disgusting how blatant some of this contempt is (Look no further than Salon, Huffington Post, ...). We can't forget about these people. And it's important to remember that these aren't hard working, enterprising people (as some say). But that we've simply criminalized their labor. We enforce labor standards and environmental standards high on our own companies (things I applaud), but are happy to import products not built under those same standards. We enforce free trade agreements, which make it impossible to oppose the flood of cheap products, but we've legislated higher costs for our own products. (This is also why these parts of the country have for so long voted for politicians who promised to remove or decrease this regulatory burden -- you may think they are voting agains their own interest, but they do not perceived it that way.)

slg 10y ago

Firstly, I don't think you can dismiss the racism/bigotry of a candidate like that. When even some of his supporters are calling him out for racism, it is hard to argue that it isn't an aspect of his platform. I personally feel that should be enough to eliminate him from holding an office like the presidency regardless of his legitimate ideologies. The objective truth is that globalization and labor arbitrage overall produce value. That is why we are seeing markets around the world react negatively to the UK's decision. Global economies will work less efficiently in a world in which the UK is not part of the EU. However as a society we are doing a bad job of distributing the increased value that comes from globalization. Int is true that the way we are distributing the value is leaving the people you are talking about worse even off than before. That is the problem and it will only get worse as other countries continue to develop and more jobs are taken over by automation. The way to solve the problem is not to roll back progress and retreat back into isolationism. That would leave society as a whole worse off. The answer is to continue to encourage progress but increase redistribution efforts to help the people who are left behind. It is simple math really. Imagine a scenario before globalization where person X has $10 and person Y has $30. Now after globalization person X has $5 and person Y has $40. Person X would clearly be angry about this development but that doesn't mean the solution is to revert everything to how it was before globalization. The answer is to take somewhere between $5 and $10 from person Y and give it to person X. That way everyone is better off than before and we all benefit from progress.