4 ms·

This is a strange take when the wealthy actively conspire through bought-and-sold politicians to discredit, undermine, and destroy labor organization, the only

This is a strange take when the wealthy actively conspire through bought-and-sold politicians to discredit, undermine, and destroy labor organization, the only thing in history with a proven track record of winning concessions for workers(in aggregate). Maybe there’s not a “conspiracy,” but there’s certainly a class war.

patagonia 8y ago
I agree class issues are at play. But our “class system” is not determined by blood lines. The constituents of a a given class are fluid. Which leads me to believe it is a combination of human nature and relative participation of the various classes. Blaming “the rich” when voting turnout is so low and election participation is low is a non starter for me.
- lovich 8y ago
  Social mobility exists but is low in the US and has been on the decline. There's no hard and fast rules on class in the US but for all practical purposes most people are going to be the same class as their parents
  - justaguyhere 8y ago
    same class as their parents Or maybe worse, if they are from middle class or lower. I worked for a couple of NY financial services firms and saw first hand how easy it was to get internships, interviews and jobs for kids with connected parents while the rest of them struggled. I think the worst result of this is, people might (maybe they already have?) just stop trying. Very few people are gonna put up with years and years of crap just to get ahead a little bit, most people aren't just built that way.
- wavefunction 8y ago
  It's hard for working-class people to get away from their jobs to vote.
  - arblegobblebrbl 8y ago
    Its the law that you must be given time away from your job to vote.
    - knuththetruth 8y ago
      Laws designed to protect workers are pretty rarely enforced, or only through costly legal proceedings that most working class people can’t afford.
      - yardie 8y ago
        Labor disputes are handled through state and federal labor relations boards. You file a complaint, an investigation is started, and eventually a ruling is made. Lawyers are not a requirement but the employer will probably send one anyway.
        knuththetruth 8y ago
        >Labor disputes are handled through state and federal labor relations boards. ...which are toothless, especially in Republican-controlled states.
    - rhcom2 8y ago
      Not in every state. https://aflcio.org/2016/11/5/know-your-rights-state-laws-employee-time-vote https://aflcio.org/2016/11/5/know-your-rights-state-laws-emp...
    - s73v3r_ 8y ago
      And good luck proving that you were let go from your job because you went to vote.
  - vkou 8y ago
    Voting is also only the last step in a representative democracy, and is the only free one. They don't have the time or money to fund the preceeding steps. Which is necessary to avoid having to vote for one of two shitty options.
- knuththetruth 8y ago
  >Blaming “the rich” when voting turnout is so low and election participation is low is a non starter for me. A big part of the Republican electoral strategy is disenfranchising working-class voters through any number of tactics, especially those subcategories of working-class people who they expect won’t vote for them. And that doesn’t even begin to address the structural and intentional hurdles to working class people’s participation in American democracy, from disenfranchisement via mass incarceration to fear of losing their jobs if they leave to vote.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Blaming “the rich” when voting turnout is so low Depressing turnout by demoralizing constituencies that lean to the other side and, particularly on one side, outright voter suppression, is something that the rich (both independently and acting through the major parties) fund lavishly, so why wouldn't they get blame when turnout is low?
  - kevin_thibedeau 8y ago
    Most people who choose not to vote aren't being systematically repressed. They're just too indifferent and/or lazy to participate.
    - lovich 8y ago
      We've had 5 occasions where the president lost the popular vote but won't the election and 2 of them were in the past 18 years. Do you think most people look at that situation and go "if only I had voted, then things would be different". Between that and a few court rulings that have turned the major elections into an event only the rich and their friends can partake in, I don't see how it's not people bring systematically repressed
      - bluGill 8y ago
        That the popular vote isn't who wins is a feature. It helps prevent the tyranny of the majority. Of course if you are in the majority that lost you hate it, while the minority like it.
        kolpa 8y ago
        Tyranny of minority isn't better than tyranny of the majority.
        dragonwriter 8y ago
        > That the popular vote isn't who wins is a feature. It helps prevent the tyranny of the majority No, it doesn't. It lowers the threshold for dictating policy, and biases it to particular interests; that makes tyranny of those interests more likely, including when they command a bare majority (or even large minority) of support. You don't fight tyranny of the majority by unequal representation; you fight tyranny of the majority with constitutional limits on what government can do at all, or by requirements for supermajorities or (as some state constitutions do) multiple time-separated votes (or both!) for particular kinds of action.

patagonia 8y ago

I agree class issues are at play. But our “class system” is not determined by blood lines. The constituents of a a given class are fluid. Which leads me to believe it is a combination of human nature and relative participation of the various classes. Blaming “the rich” when voting turnout is so low and election participation is low is a non starter for me.

lovich 8y ago
Social mobility exists but is low in the US and has been on the decline. There's no hard and fast rules on class in the US but for all practical purposes most people are going to be the same class as their parents
- justaguyhere 8y ago
  same class as their parents Or maybe worse, if they are from middle class or lower. I worked for a couple of NY financial services firms and saw first hand how easy it was to get internships, interviews and jobs for kids with connected parents while the rest of them struggled. I think the worst result of this is, people might (maybe they already have?) just stop trying. Very few people are gonna put up with years and years of crap just to get ahead a little bit, most people aren't just built that way.
wavefunction 8y ago
It's hard for working-class people to get away from their jobs to vote.
- arblegobblebrbl 8y ago
  Its the law that you must be given time away from your job to vote.
  - knuththetruth 8y ago
    Laws designed to protect workers are pretty rarely enforced, or only through costly legal proceedings that most working class people can’t afford.
    - yardie 8y ago
      Labor disputes are handled through state and federal labor relations boards. You file a complaint, an investigation is started, and eventually a ruling is made. Lawyers are not a requirement but the employer will probably send one anyway.
      - knuththetruth 8y ago
        >Labor disputes are handled through state and federal labor relations boards. ...which are toothless, especially in Republican-controlled states.
  - rhcom2 8y ago
    Not in every state. https://aflcio.org/2016/11/5/know-your-rights-state-laws-employee-time-vote https://aflcio.org/2016/11/5/know-your-rights-state-laws-emp...
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    And good luck proving that you were let go from your job because you went to vote.
- vkou 8y ago
  Voting is also only the last step in a representative democracy, and is the only free one. They don't have the time or money to fund the preceeding steps. Which is necessary to avoid having to vote for one of two shitty options.
knuththetruth 8y ago
>Blaming “the rich” when voting turnout is so low and election participation is low is a non starter for me. A big part of the Republican electoral strategy is disenfranchising working-class voters through any number of tactics, especially those subcategories of working-class people who they expect won’t vote for them. And that doesn’t even begin to address the structural and intentional hurdles to working class people’s participation in American democracy, from disenfranchisement via mass incarceration to fear of losing their jobs if they leave to vote.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> Blaming “the rich” when voting turnout is so low Depressing turnout by demoralizing constituencies that lean to the other side and, particularly on one side, outright voter suppression, is something that the rich (both independently and acting through the major parties) fund lavishly, so why wouldn't they get blame when turnout is low?
- kevin_thibedeau 8y ago
  Most people who choose not to vote aren't being systematically repressed. They're just too indifferent and/or lazy to participate.
  - lovich 8y ago
    We've had 5 occasions where the president lost the popular vote but won't the election and 2 of them were in the past 18 years. Do you think most people look at that situation and go "if only I had voted, then things would be different". Between that and a few court rulings that have turned the major elections into an event only the rich and their friends can partake in, I don't see how it's not people bring systematically repressed
    - bluGill 8y ago
      That the popular vote isn't who wins is a feature. It helps prevent the tyranny of the majority. Of course if you are in the majority that lost you hate it, while the minority like it.
      - kolpa 8y ago
        Tyranny of minority isn't better than tyranny of the majority.
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        > That the popular vote isn't who wins is a feature. It helps prevent the tyranny of the majority No, it doesn't. It lowers the threshold for dictating policy, and biases it to particular interests; that makes tyranny of those interests more likely, including when they command a bare majority (or even large minority) of support. You don't fight tyranny of the majority by unequal representation; you fight tyranny of the majority with constitutional limits on what government can do at all, or by requirements for supermajorities or (as some state constitutions do) multiple time-separated votes (or both!) for particular kinds of action.