4 ms·

> as stated this is a grossly inaccurate summary. On the whole the economy is doing radically better than it was during the recession in almost every way. You

> as stated this is a grossly inaccurate summary. On the whole the economy is doing radically better than it was during the recession in almost every way. Your assuming "the whole economy" is an accurate measurement of how citizens finances are doing. But those two things are often not related in any way. In my "flyover-Midwest" community, the stronger the economy does, the worse off real people's lives are here. "The economy" rewards companies whose profits go up and expenses go down. But in much of flyover America, "expenses" represents real people's paychecks, and "profits" represent real peoples bills. Good jobs rarely come here. These folks don't own stocks or bonds. Many don't have retirement plans. Whenever the economy improves, all that really means here is "someone I know got fired today" or "the price of something I buy just got jacked up". Just one example: Google claims GM's stock price is at it's highest peak for the entire year. Two days ago, GM laid off 2,000 people in Michigan and Ohio. Wealthy citizens (or "coastal elites") got taken care of nicely, but "rural" Americans who actually work for GM just got yet-another kick to the teeth. > I recommend diving into BLS data yourself if you’re curious about particular regions, industries, etc. This is where a lot of the "out of touch liberal ivory tower" insults come from. Telling people who work two jobs and still can't afford rent or childcare that "your wrong, my census data proves your doing just fine" is the kind of tone deaf communication that makes people desperate enough to elect a "human Molotov cocktail". If your a person who's been suffering for years, and the choices are "just me and my neighbors keep getting screwed" or "everybody in the whole nation gets screwed", a lot of people will take that second option. I don't defend that decision, and it's certainly not the vote I cast. But I'm not so out of touch with my neighbors as to pretend it's unfathomable that so many people chose that.

spiritofenter 10y ago
I have the same feelings but have trouble finding good statistics that help tell this story. Do you know where to start looking?
- maxsilver 10y ago
  Not really. I wish I did though. --- Here's one example: There's been a lot of talk about how "Trumps supporters are slightly more wealthy than Clintons" (as in, the absolute poor voted more towards Clinton, but the lower-middle-class voted more towards Trump). But I'm not so sure about that. I know in my town if you are "absolute poor" (below 60% avg income -- roughly $12/hr or less) you are allowed to live downtown in luxury apartments at little cost, because a combination of various government subsidies exist. Apartments that would cost HN readers $1,800/month to rent, cost these folks only $400-$800 (depending on income, family size, etc). These residents also get all the benefits of a gentrifying urban neighborhood without paying for it (crime is slowly dropping, public transit is slowly improving, what few nicer jobs that are being created, usually appear right there, etc). However, if you "make too much money" (read, $12-16/hr, still poor, but not "absolute poor") you don't qualify for any of this. These folks must pay $700-$1,000/month for run down apartments in the far edges of town. These apartments have effectively zero public transit (everyone here must also own a car) and are not near any "nicer" jobs, but are usually sandwiched between buildings like WalMart and Home Depot. - - - If you are sitting in NYC, and do a quick map of "census reported income by zip code across voters by zip code", you'd probably conclude something like "In Michigan, the poorest people voted Clinton, and the middle class voted Trump". But in terms of real-world wealth here, the "absolute poor" (by income) are actually wealthier (in terms of opportunity, access, quality of life, diversity of neighbors, and amount of paycheck left over they can spend/save) than those who are "lower-middle class" (have slightly higher income) but lack all of that. The real world is a bit more complicated than just plugging census data into maps -- it's tempting and convenient, but wildly inaccurate to make broad assumptions using that methodology. I don't know how to get all of these factors into easily-usable statistics, but I am seeing these sort of discrepancies happening in person somewhat often.
jacobolus 10y ago
Are you suggesting that HN commenter spiritofenter is "people who work two jobs and still can't afford rent or childcare" Anyhow, inre his original > national leadership has not done anything to address it Obama and the Democrats have been trying hard to push for more infrastructure spending, improved childcare, more money to bail out struggling state governments, minimum wage increases, more parental leave, continuing fixes to the healthcare system, reduced prescription drug prices, relief for the heavily indebted, etc., but (a) they’ve faced unprecedented obstructionism and deliberate dysfunction from the GOP (for instance states refusing federal money for medicare expansion and trying to sabotage the ACA), and (b) these are difficult problems which can’t be solved by waving a wand and uttering a magic incantation. The auto industry bailout and stimulus bill and ACA were what they could get passed through congress, not their preferred policy solutions to these problems. At the state level a number of GOP-controlled states have cut state spending and employment dramatically, closed schools, slashed income taxes for the wealthy and replaced them with sales taxes, undertaken targeted campaigns to destroy local unions (both public and private sector), etc.
- spiritofenter 10y ago
  Thank you for your points and information.

spiritofenter 10y ago

I have the same feelings but have trouble finding good statistics that help tell this story. Do you know where to start looking?

maxsilver 10y ago
Not really. I wish I did though. --- Here's one example: There's been a lot of talk about how "Trumps supporters are slightly more wealthy than Clintons" (as in, the absolute poor voted more towards Clinton, but the lower-middle-class voted more towards Trump). But I'm not so sure about that. I know in my town if you are "absolute poor" (below 60% avg income -- roughly $12/hr or less) you are allowed to live downtown in luxury apartments at little cost, because a combination of various government subsidies exist. Apartments that would cost HN readers $1,800/month to rent, cost these folks only $400-$800 (depending on income, family size, etc). These residents also get all the benefits of a gentrifying urban neighborhood without paying for it (crime is slowly dropping, public transit is slowly improving, what few nicer jobs that are being created, usually appear right there, etc). However, if you "make too much money" (read, $12-16/hr, still poor, but not "absolute poor") you don't qualify for any of this. These folks must pay $700-$1,000/month for run down apartments in the far edges of town. These apartments have effectively zero public transit (everyone here must also own a car) and are not near any "nicer" jobs, but are usually sandwiched between buildings like WalMart and Home Depot. - - - If you are sitting in NYC, and do a quick map of "census reported income by zip code across voters by zip code", you'd probably conclude something like "In Michigan, the poorest people voted Clinton, and the middle class voted Trump". But in terms of real-world wealth here, the "absolute poor" (by income) are actually wealthier (in terms of opportunity, access, quality of life, diversity of neighbors, and amount of paycheck left over they can spend/save) than those who are "lower-middle class" (have slightly higher income) but lack all of that. The real world is a bit more complicated than just plugging census data into maps -- it's tempting and convenient, but wildly inaccurate to make broad assumptions using that methodology. I don't know how to get all of these factors into easily-usable statistics, but I am seeing these sort of discrepancies happening in person somewhat often.

jacobolus 10y ago

Are you suggesting that HN commenter spiritofenter is "people who work two jobs and still can't afford rent or childcare" Anyhow, inre his original > national leadership has not done anything to address it Obama and the Democrats have been trying hard to push for more infrastructure spending, improved childcare, more money to bail out struggling state governments, minimum wage increases, more parental leave, continuing fixes to the healthcare system, reduced prescription drug prices, relief for the heavily indebted, etc., but (a) they’ve faced unprecedented obstructionism and deliberate dysfunction from the GOP (for instance states refusing federal money for medicare expansion and trying to sabotage the ACA), and (b) these are difficult problems which can’t be solved by waving a wand and uttering a magic incantation. The auto industry bailout and stimulus bill and ACA were what they could get passed through congress, not their preferred policy solutions to these problems. At the state level a number of GOP-controlled states have cut state spending and employment dramatically, closed schools, slashed income taxes for the wealthy and replaced them with sales taxes, undertaken targeted campaigns to destroy local unions (both public and private sector), etc.

spiritofenter 10y ago
Thank you for your points and information.