4 ms·
The part that I found most interesting: "Last-place aversion suggests that low-income individuals might oppose redistribution because it could differentially h
by whack 10y ago
The part that I found most interesting:
"Last-place aversion suggests that low-income individuals might oppose redistribution because it could differentially help the group just beneath them. Using survey data, we show that individuals making just above the minimum wage are the most likely to oppose its increase. Similarly, in the General Social Survey, those above poverty but below median-income support redistribution significantly less than their background characteristics would predict."
Sounds exactly like the Republican playbook for winning rural below-median-income voters. Bring up the "welfare queen moochers" bugbear as often as you can, and paint them as the primary beneficiaries of the social safety net.
- keithpeter 10y agoReminded me of 'differentials' when I was a spectator in wage negotiations decades ago. Deals would get difficult if the smallest change to the differences between a labourer and a very semi-skilled occupation.
- ars 10y agoI read it quite differently. This is economically logical for them: By keeping minimum wage low[er] they can afford things made by those earning less than them. If minimum wage went up, their wage is unlikely to go up as well, but their costs would go up, so their effective income will be lower. > Sounds exactly like the Republican playbook Instead of insulting those you disagree with, how about understanding them instead?
- whack 10y ago> This is economically logical for them: By keeping minimum wage low[er] they can afford things made by those earning less than them. The study is based on lab psychology experiments, where none of the economic effects you mentioned exist. Participants choose gambles with the potential to move them out of last place that they reject when randomly placed in other parts of the distribution. In modified-dictator games, participants randomly placed in second-to-last place are the most likely to give money to the person one rank above them instead of the person one rank below. Last-place aversion suggests that low-income individuals might oppose redistribution because it could differentially help the group just beneath them. All of the above suggests/demonstrates that people near the bottom, have a psychological aversion to policies that would help those at the bottom, regardless of rational-self-interest. Also, there's nothing insulting in pointing out the connection between this study's conclusions, and Republican political-strategy/voter-behavior. If you think this behavior is perfectly logical and rational, I don't see why you would consider this connection to be insulting in the first place.
- oh_sigh 10y agoI had a surprising conversation with a Chinese H1B holder at my job. Her argument against Trump was that, if Trump kicks out all of the illegal immigrants in the US, then legal immigrants with mediocre English and non-white skin will become the new low people on the totem pole, making her life harder.
- kahrkunne 10y agoDon't worry, she can go back to being in the upper half of the totem pole back in her own country