3 ms·

Oddly enough, it's on tech-oriented sites like this one that I hear the most chatter about universal basic income or post-work societies, and grappling with the

Oddly enough, it's on tech-oriented sites like this one that I hear the most chatter about universal basic income or post-work societies, and grappling with the very disruptions of the social fabric that tech development creates. Perhaps this shift is partly a seismic realignment; traditional left-right divides don't fit as comfortably as they used to, as issues move faster than constituencies and demographics. Or maybe just corporations, like people, get more conservative when they're richer. Possibly out of cynical self-interest.

cderwin 10y ago
> Or maybe just corporations, like people, get more conservative when they're richer. Possibly out of cynical self-interest. In the case of people, this is a popular misconception. Democrats are funded by more billionaires than Republicans, are in control of a majority of the wealthiest congressional districts, and among people earning more than $200,000 the presidential vote was very evenly split. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2014/jun/23/do-many-billionaires-support-democratic-party/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2014/jun/23/... https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/07/opinion/how-did-the-democrats-become-favorites-of-the-rich.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/07/opinion/how-did-the-democ... http://ijr.com/2014/02/116056-wall-street-bankers-top-donors-agree-democrat-party-new-party-rich/ http://ijr.com/2014/02/116056-wall-street-bankers-top-donors... http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/elections/exit-poll-analysis.html http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/elections/e...
- JumpCrisscross 10y ago
  Democrat versus Republican makes more sense as urban versus nonurban than anything else.
  - ryandamm 10y ago
    Very true (and parent makes a really good point, also). I do wonder: rather than a single axis, how many would be appropriate? If you did PCA on... well, some crazy mishmash of factors -- demographic, political, socioeconomic, geographic -- what would be the eigenvalues of today's US politics? (And what's the minimum sensible number of values to capture the range of experience?) Man, I can just hear my cofounder exhaling in frustration, at such an ill-posed problem, and abuse of terminology... and no doubt there are real, quantitative answers to some of this (and PCA is probably naive compared to... latest whiz-bang etc)... But still.
    - cderwin 10y ago
      I imagine at that point the cause and effect would become mightily, mightily mixed up. Maybe race is a cause of political affiliation (it certainly isn't an effect), but surely certain factors, like donations, would be an effect of political affiliation. As it already stands, it seems reasonable to me that the urban/suburban/rural split might be equally as much an effect as a cause. As it stands, that sort of analysis might be interesting, but is of little value without separating cause and effect (and surely those will be different for everyone).
wbillingsley 10y ago
It's more that the "left" changed. Where it used to be somewhat protectionist, supporting local workers against asset-owners, during the late 80s and 90s the "left" shifted to try to be more internationalist, metropolitan, and aspirational. With the seeming rise of the professional classes, that looked like being the next big demographic, and of course government policy workers and journalists fall very squarely into that demographic (city-dwelling professional) so it had the attraction to those whose career is debating public policy of supporting their own niche. Universal basic income is one of the few ideas that the Old-Left and New-Right can agree on, but it's the internationalist New-Left that gets stymied by it. - it implies very strong immigration controls, as a no-questions-asked massive cheque is one heck of an attractor for immigration. (And you're not going to get every country in the world to introduce it simultaneously.) - in the same vein as Charter Schools, it implies the state having less say over your individual choices than if the state were providing services directly (and the state instead of the consumer deciding what shape they should be). The New Left, which to be brutal fell into the trap of caring mostly that everyone should be expected to agree with it (be pro-immigration, secularist, etc) or otherwise they must be horrible / deplorable people, gets painted out on both counts. Stronger immigration controls make international city-hopping harder, and weaker control over services (if the state is just handing out cash) makes it harder to press everyone to fall in line and hold the same opinions. One of the up-sides of "the return of protectionism" might actually be that you need those conditions to allow a UBI to be introduced.
- pm90 10y ago
  This is a good comment. The left saw much success after the New Deal because of its pro-labor stance...as society evolved, it came to encompass a whole bunch of rather polarizing issues rather than simply being "labor v/s corporation" and that seems to have reduced their appeal to the rural populace.
  - eli_gottlieb 10y ago
    Except that by now, labor has been weakened and economic inequality has increased to the point that the Old Left is clamping its hand over the New Left's mouth and taking over the title of "left-wing" again.

cderwin 10y ago

> Or maybe just corporations, like people, get more conservative when they're richer. Possibly out of cynical self-interest. In the case of people, this is a popular misconception. Democrats are funded by more billionaires than Republicans, are in control of a majority of the wealthiest congressional districts, and among people earning more than $200,000 the presidential vote was very evenly split. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2014/jun/23/do-many-billionaires-support-democratic-party/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2014/jun/23/... https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/07/opinion/how-did-the-democrats-become-favorites-of-the-rich.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/07/opinion/how-did-the-democ... http://ijr.com/2014/02/116056-wall-street-bankers-top-donors-agree-democrat-party-new-party-rich/ http://ijr.com/2014/02/116056-wall-street-bankers-top-donors... http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/elections/exit-poll-analysis.html http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/elections/e...

JumpCrisscross 10y ago
Democrat versus Republican makes more sense as urban versus nonurban than anything else.
- ryandamm 10y ago
  Very true (and parent makes a really good point, also). I do wonder: rather than a single axis, how many would be appropriate? If you did PCA on... well, some crazy mishmash of factors -- demographic, political, socioeconomic, geographic -- what would be the eigenvalues of today's US politics? (And what's the minimum sensible number of values to capture the range of experience?) Man, I can just hear my cofounder exhaling in frustration, at such an ill-posed problem, and abuse of terminology... and no doubt there are real, quantitative answers to some of this (and PCA is probably naive compared to... latest whiz-bang etc)... But still.
  - cderwin 10y ago
    I imagine at that point the cause and effect would become mightily, mightily mixed up. Maybe race is a cause of political affiliation (it certainly isn't an effect), but surely certain factors, like donations, would be an effect of political affiliation. As it already stands, it seems reasonable to me that the urban/suburban/rural split might be equally as much an effect as a cause. As it stands, that sort of analysis might be interesting, but is of little value without separating cause and effect (and surely those will be different for everyone).

wbillingsley 10y ago

It's more that the "left" changed. Where it used to be somewhat protectionist, supporting local workers against asset-owners, during the late 80s and 90s the "left" shifted to try to be more internationalist, metropolitan, and aspirational. With the seeming rise of the professional classes, that looked like being the next big demographic, and of course government policy workers and journalists fall very squarely into that demographic (city-dwelling professional) so it had the attraction to those whose career is debating public policy of supporting their own niche. Universal basic income is one of the few ideas that the Old-Left and New-Right can agree on, but it's the internationalist New-Left that gets stymied by it. - it implies very strong immigration controls, as a no-questions-asked massive cheque is one heck of an attractor for immigration. (And you're not going to get every country in the world to introduce it simultaneously.) - in the same vein as Charter Schools, it implies the state having less say over your individual choices than if the state were providing services directly (and the state instead of the consumer deciding what shape they should be). The New Left, which to be brutal fell into the trap of caring mostly that everyone should be expected to agree with it (be pro-immigration, secularist, etc) or otherwise they must be horrible / deplorable people, gets painted out on both counts. Stronger immigration controls make international city-hopping harder, and weaker control over services (if the state is just handing out cash) makes it harder to press everyone to fall in line and hold the same opinions. One of the up-sides of "the return of protectionism" might actually be that you need those conditions to allow a UBI to be introduced.

pm90 10y ago
This is a good comment. The left saw much success after the New Deal because of its pro-labor stance...as society evolved, it came to encompass a whole bunch of rather polarizing issues rather than simply being "labor v/s corporation" and that seems to have reduced their appeal to the rural populace.
- eli_gottlieb 10y ago
  Except that by now, labor has been weakened and economic inequality has increased to the point that the Old Left is clamping its hand over the New Left's mouth and taking over the title of "left-wing" again.