5 ms·

"America’s political climate is changing; among other things, the 2016 presidential election brought up the issue of wealth inequality in this country and made

"America’s political climate is changing; among other things, the 2016 presidential election brought up the issue of wealth inequality in this country and made people consider more closely the structural forces that define class here." What on earth does the 2016 election have to do with wealth inequality (or unions for that matter)? Inequality has been on the rise for decades and Clinton was also a member of the 1%. This seems like a non-sequitur.

ceejayoz 8y ago
The 2016 election had very clear wealth inequality consequences where tax policy is concerned. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/12/2/16720952/senate-tax-bill-inequality https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/12/2/16720952/s...
justaman 8y ago
There are a lot more socialists in the US than there were 5 years ago. Some attribute that to Bernie Sanders and his run for the dem's nomination.
magissima 8y ago
They're probably mostly referring to Bernie Sanders, who ran a campaign very focused on wealth inequality. The union link is that when people become more aware of inequality and by extension class, they become more likely to participate in class-based politics and organizations such as unions, in theory at least.
- citilife 8y ago
  The part I seem to be missing, is that most of the people working at Kickstarter are the top 2-5% of the U.S.. Their business caters to many people who want to start projects, who aren't living pay-check-to-pay-check anyway. I don't really understand the purpose of the unionization effort, beyond the facade of just wanting to in some way "fit in" with a social movement.
  - speedplane 8y ago
    > I don't really understand the purpose of the unionization effort, beyond the facade of just wanting to in some way "fit in" with a social movement. It's pretty naive to think unionization is just a social fad. It's a path towards job security, safety, good pay, and control over the direction of your own labor. Trendiness is pretty low on the totem pole.
    - solidasparagus 8y ago
      Collective control over the collective direction of the collective labor. Unions, at least in practice, are only good for the majority of the laborers and definitely not good for independent control over your own work.
      - speedplane 8y ago
        > Collective control over the collective direction of the collective labor. Unions, at least in practice, are only good for the majority of the laborers and definitely not good for independent control over your own work. The alternative is complete control by the employer. Sure, a union, as an institution with power, can likely limit some of your independence, but an employer can limit all of it.
- _-david-_ 8y ago
  >They're probably mostly referring to Bernie Sanders, who ran a campaign very focused on wealth inequality. Sanders is in the 1% as well.
  - speedplane 8y ago
    > Sanders is in the 1% as well. Just because someone belongs to a group, doesn't make their criticism of the unjust advantages of that group invalid. Similarly, a white person arguing for civil rights is not a hypocrite either.
drawkbox 8y ago
Yeah inequality has been in play for decades but heavily since 2000s. The Great Recession and subsequently Occupy Wall Street were early reactions to the symptoms that started heavily in the 2000s but really has been in play since the 70s. Share of GDP is a steady downtrend [1]. Velocity of money fell of a cliff in 2000s [2]. US GINI coefficient has increased steadily [3]. Inequality definitely became more of an issue in 2016 election but not much has been done to help it, it will continue to be an issue until UBI or GDP share changes. [1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/W270RE1A156NBEA https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/W270RE1A156NBEA [2] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2V https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2V [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality#OECD_countries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_eq...
taurath 8y ago
The globalist vs anti-globalist thing is a way to capture the "wealth inequality" vote for conservatives - our town hasn't been doing well but those damn dirty urban liberals seem to be doing great!
kadendogthing 8y ago
>What on earth does the 2016 election have to do with wealth inequality A guy who is objectively unqualified for every conceivable post had the opportunity to become elected as president of the U.S. merely because he was born wealthy. You might have heard the following term before: plutocracy
- zeveb 8y ago
  Of course, his opponent was objectively unqualified for every conceivable post but had the opportunity to be elected president of the U.S. merely because of her husband's name. America's in a lot of trouble. 2020 is going to make 2016 look like Jefferson & Adams.
  - JoeAltmaier 8y ago
    That's palpably false. She was the single most qualified candidate for President, from a policy viewpoint, the nation has ever had. It was dismissive nonsense like that comment, that was her biggest obstacle.
    - jessaustin 8y ago
      The "from a policy viewpoint" clause is doing a lot of work in that proposition. Was she more qualified than Washington? Jefferson? Eisenhower? Bush the Elder?
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > She was the single most qualified candidate for President, from a policy viewpoint, the nation has ever had. She wasn't even close. She had a fair amount of NGO issue advocacy experience (mostly in the human services domain), less than two full terms in the Senate, and a brief (and arguably none too impressive) stint as the weakest-incoming-foreign-policy-resume Secretary of State we’d had in a long time (but Rex Tillerson displaced her for that “honor”.) You can make the case that she edges out Obama and certainly W in terms of initial policy qualifications, but not her own husband or Ronald Reagan (unless you focus only on foreign policy), not George H. W. Bush (unless you focus only on domestic policy), maybe Carter, probably Nixon, not even close to Johnson, ...
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

ceejayoz 8y ago

The 2016 election had very clear wealth inequality consequences where tax policy is concerned. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/12/2/16720952/senate-tax-bill-inequality https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/12/2/16720952/s...

justaman 8y ago

There are a lot more socialists in the US than there were 5 years ago. Some attribute that to Bernie Sanders and his run for the dem's nomination.

magissima 8y ago

They're probably mostly referring to Bernie Sanders, who ran a campaign very focused on wealth inequality. The union link is that when people become more aware of inequality and by extension class, they become more likely to participate in class-based politics and organizations such as unions, in theory at least.

citilife 8y ago
The part I seem to be missing, is that most of the people working at Kickstarter are the top 2-5% of the U.S.. Their business caters to many people who want to start projects, who aren't living pay-check-to-pay-check anyway. I don't really understand the purpose of the unionization effort, beyond the facade of just wanting to in some way "fit in" with a social movement.
- speedplane 8y ago
  > I don't really understand the purpose of the unionization effort, beyond the facade of just wanting to in some way "fit in" with a social movement. It's pretty naive to think unionization is just a social fad. It's a path towards job security, safety, good pay, and control over the direction of your own labor. Trendiness is pretty low on the totem pole.
  - solidasparagus 8y ago
    Collective control over the collective direction of the collective labor. Unions, at least in practice, are only good for the majority of the laborers and definitely not good for independent control over your own work.
    - speedplane 8y ago
      > Collective control over the collective direction of the collective labor. Unions, at least in practice, are only good for the majority of the laborers and definitely not good for independent control over your own work. The alternative is complete control by the employer. Sure, a union, as an institution with power, can likely limit some of your independence, but an employer can limit all of it.
_-david-_ 8y ago
>They're probably mostly referring to Bernie Sanders, who ran a campaign very focused on wealth inequality. Sanders is in the 1% as well.
- speedplane 8y ago
  > Sanders is in the 1% as well. Just because someone belongs to a group, doesn't make their criticism of the unjust advantages of that group invalid. Similarly, a white person arguing for civil rights is not a hypocrite either.

drawkbox 8y ago

Yeah inequality has been in play for decades but heavily since 2000s. The Great Recession and subsequently Occupy Wall Street were early reactions to the symptoms that started heavily in the 2000s but really has been in play since the 70s. Share of GDP is a steady downtrend [1]. Velocity of money fell of a cliff in 2000s [2]. US GINI coefficient has increased steadily [3]. Inequality definitely became more of an issue in 2016 election but not much has been done to help it, it will continue to be an issue until UBI or GDP share changes. [1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/W270RE1A156NBEA https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/W270RE1A156NBEA [2] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2V https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2V [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality#OECD_countries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_eq...

taurath 8y ago

The globalist vs anti-globalist thing is a way to capture the "wealth inequality" vote for conservatives - our town hasn't been doing well but those damn dirty urban liberals seem to be doing great!

kadendogthing 8y ago

>What on earth does the 2016 election have to do with wealth inequality A guy who is objectively unqualified for every conceivable post had the opportunity to become elected as president of the U.S. merely because he was born wealthy. You might have heard the following term before: plutocracy

zeveb 8y ago
Of course, his opponent was objectively unqualified for every conceivable post but had the opportunity to be elected president of the U.S. merely because of her husband's name. America's in a lot of trouble. 2020 is going to make 2016 look like Jefferson & Adams.
- JoeAltmaier 8y ago
  That's palpably false. She was the single most qualified candidate for President, from a policy viewpoint, the nation has ever had. It was dismissive nonsense like that comment, that was her biggest obstacle.
  - jessaustin 8y ago
    The "from a policy viewpoint" clause is doing a lot of work in that proposition. Was she more qualified than Washington? Jefferson? Eisenhower? Bush the Elder?
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > She was the single most qualified candidate for President, from a policy viewpoint, the nation has ever had. She wasn't even close. She had a fair amount of NGO issue advocacy experience (mostly in the human services domain), less than two full terms in the Senate, and a brief (and arguably none too impressive) stint as the weakest-incoming-foreign-policy-resume Secretary of State we’d had in a long time (but Rex Tillerson displaced her for that “honor”.) You can make the case that she edges out Obama and certainly W in terms of initial policy qualifications, but not her own husband or Ronald Reagan (unless you focus only on foreign policy), not George H. W. Bush (unless you focus only on domestic policy), maybe Carter, probably Nixon, not even close to Johnson, ...

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]