5 ms·

If you have an alternative hypothesis, I’m all ears. The lack of good paying jobs and the knock on effects of expanding wealth disparity seems to be underlying

If you have an alternative hypothesis, I’m all ears. The lack of good paying jobs and the knock on effects of expanding wealth disparity seems to be underlying most of the issues driving radicalism, left and right, up and down. In America, at least, workers think tomorrow will be worse than today and they are resorting to populism to try and reverse the trend.

iepathos 1y ago
I don’t think it’s accurate to say that the working class is “resorting to populism to reverse the trend.” If anything, the fact that so many working-class voters support a wealthy oligarchy—one that consistently advances policies benefiting the super-rich at the expense of ordinary people—suggests that a significant portion of the population is being swayed by misinformation and manipulation, not that they’re successfully advocating for their own interests. Ironically, it’s often the opposite party that actually pushes for policies that would materially benefit the working class. The real fallacy is equating the current wave of so-called “populism” with a genuine effort to improve conditions for workers. In practice, what’s being called “populism” is frequently just another vehicle for entrenched elites to consolidate power, not a movement to empower ordinary people.
- lurk2 1y ago
  > Ironically, it’s often the opposite party that actually pushes for policies that would materially benefit the working class. Such as?
  - lotsofpulp 1y ago
    All the Democrat led states have paid leave and higher minimum wages/overtime exempt laws. And higher unemployment benefits. And longer leave times for new moms. It’s also the Dem states that have free school lunches for kids and more robust Medicaid funding. Democrats passed ACA, which made insurance even possible to purchase if you weren’t offered it by employer, and the annual out of pocket maximum, ban on pre existing conditions as a criteria for calculating premiums, and ACA premium credits made it more attainable than it was before ACA. Build Back Better bill a couple years ago would have made paid leave policies nationwide and provided more assistance with childcare.
    - lurk2 1y ago
      > All the Democrat led states have paid leave and higher minimum wages/overtime exempt laws. And higher unemployment benefits They also have significantly higher unemployment rates. > Build Back Better bill a couple years ago This bill was named after policy advanced by people who want to turn the general population into a class of permanent renters.
    - tekknik 1y ago
      Lets not forget higher taxes! > Democrats passed ACA, which made insurance even possible to purchase if you weren’t offered it by employer, and the annual out of pocket maximum, ban on pre existing conditions as a criteria for calculating premiums, and ACA premium credits made it more attainable than it was before ACA. Have you actually ever purchased a plan from the website? The last time I checked, the costs were the same as if I had a plan on my own. Also you could get policies prior to ACA, but were subject to health exams and non-coverage of preexisting conditions. In fact, one could argue that all ACA accomplished of benefit was forcing coverage of preexisting conditions. But let's also not forget the fine, which was applied to people who did not have health insurance under the assumption that it was a choice. In reality, people don't have health insurance if they can't afford it which made the penalty functionally a tax on the poor. You speak of ACA like everybody will agree with you. A decade later I'm still mad at Obama and want my $4k back.
      - lotsofpulp 1y ago
        >In fact, one could argue that all ACA accomplished of benefit was forcing coverage of preexisting conditions. Aka giving people access to healthcare. Health insurance is not real insurance, it’s a facade where we pretend premiums are not taxes. 99% of people could never afford the healthcare they get, they would just die. Which is fine, but there is no situation where healthcare + low taxes (wealth redistribution) exists. So it’s high taxes + healthcare, but with a flattening and top heavy population age histogram, even that doesn’t work. The worst is when old people only get healthcare (Medicare, which is all there was before ACA). A country is doomed if it’s just sacrificing the future to eke out a few years its oldest.
- sumedh 1y ago
  > it’s often the opposite party that actually pushes for policies that would materially benefit the working class. Except on immigration.
  - iepathos 1y ago
    Immigrants are a critical part of the working class in America. Always have been.
dragonwriter 1y ago
> If you have an alternative hypothesis, I’m all ears. How about if I let you do that: > In America, at least, workers think tomorrow will be worse than today and they are resorting to populism to try and reverse the trend. See, belief about likely future conditions is a very different hypothesis than factually-existing current conditions, and a better one. To the extent that, IMO, its at least part of the actual explanation.
- arrosenberg 1y ago
  It’s the same hypothesis. Its a line trending down, and there is an awareness that today is less than yesterday and more than tomorrow.
  - dragonwriter 1y ago
    > It’s the same hypothesis. No, perception and reality are different things. > Its a line trending down Perception? Sure. Reality? No, it factually wasn't prior to the events that it is being invoked to explain. Which is why perception of decline is a much more defensible hypothesis as to the cause than actual decline.
    - arrosenberg 1y ago
      It sounds like you think material conditions haven’t gotten worse? Cost of housing, food and healthcare, plus flat wages seem to disagree. I think in this case people’s perception matches reality. I’ve noticed you refuse to put forward your own reasons, why is that?

iepathos 1y ago

I don’t think it’s accurate to say that the working class is “resorting to populism to reverse the trend.” If anything, the fact that so many working-class voters support a wealthy oligarchy—one that consistently advances policies benefiting the super-rich at the expense of ordinary people—suggests that a significant portion of the population is being swayed by misinformation and manipulation, not that they’re successfully advocating for their own interests. Ironically, it’s often the opposite party that actually pushes for policies that would materially benefit the working class. The real fallacy is equating the current wave of so-called “populism” with a genuine effort to improve conditions for workers. In practice, what’s being called “populism” is frequently just another vehicle for entrenched elites to consolidate power, not a movement to empower ordinary people.

lurk2 1y ago
> Ironically, it’s often the opposite party that actually pushes for policies that would materially benefit the working class. Such as?
- lotsofpulp 1y ago
  All the Democrat led states have paid leave and higher minimum wages/overtime exempt laws. And higher unemployment benefits. And longer leave times for new moms. It’s also the Dem states that have free school lunches for kids and more robust Medicaid funding. Democrats passed ACA, which made insurance even possible to purchase if you weren’t offered it by employer, and the annual out of pocket maximum, ban on pre existing conditions as a criteria for calculating premiums, and ACA premium credits made it more attainable than it was before ACA. Build Back Better bill a couple years ago would have made paid leave policies nationwide and provided more assistance with childcare.
  - lurk2 1y ago
    > All the Democrat led states have paid leave and higher minimum wages/overtime exempt laws. And higher unemployment benefits They also have significantly higher unemployment rates. > Build Back Better bill a couple years ago This bill was named after policy advanced by people who want to turn the general population into a class of permanent renters.
  - tekknik 1y ago
    Lets not forget higher taxes! > Democrats passed ACA, which made insurance even possible to purchase if you weren’t offered it by employer, and the annual out of pocket maximum, ban on pre existing conditions as a criteria for calculating premiums, and ACA premium credits made it more attainable than it was before ACA. Have you actually ever purchased a plan from the website? The last time I checked, the costs were the same as if I had a plan on my own. Also you could get policies prior to ACA, but were subject to health exams and non-coverage of preexisting conditions. In fact, one could argue that all ACA accomplished of benefit was forcing coverage of preexisting conditions. But let's also not forget the fine, which was applied to people who did not have health insurance under the assumption that it was a choice. In reality, people don't have health insurance if they can't afford it which made the penalty functionally a tax on the poor. You speak of ACA like everybody will agree with you. A decade later I'm still mad at Obama and want my $4k back.
    - lotsofpulp 1y ago
      >In fact, one could argue that all ACA accomplished of benefit was forcing coverage of preexisting conditions. Aka giving people access to healthcare. Health insurance is not real insurance, it’s a facade where we pretend premiums are not taxes. 99% of people could never afford the healthcare they get, they would just die. Which is fine, but there is no situation where healthcare + low taxes (wealth redistribution) exists. So it’s high taxes + healthcare, but with a flattening and top heavy population age histogram, even that doesn’t work. The worst is when old people only get healthcare (Medicare, which is all there was before ACA). A country is doomed if it’s just sacrificing the future to eke out a few years its oldest.
sumedh 1y ago
> it’s often the opposite party that actually pushes for policies that would materially benefit the working class. Except on immigration.
- iepathos 1y ago
  Immigrants are a critical part of the working class in America. Always have been.

dragonwriter 1y ago

> If you have an alternative hypothesis, I’m all ears. How about if I let you do that: > In America, at least, workers think tomorrow will be worse than today and they are resorting to populism to try and reverse the trend. See, belief about likely future conditions is a very different hypothesis than factually-existing current conditions, and a better one. To the extent that, IMO, its at least part of the actual explanation.

arrosenberg 1y ago
It’s the same hypothesis. Its a line trending down, and there is an awareness that today is less than yesterday and more than tomorrow.
- dragonwriter 1y ago
  > It’s the same hypothesis. No, perception and reality are different things. > Its a line trending down Perception? Sure. Reality? No, it factually wasn't prior to the events that it is being invoked to explain. Which is why perception of decline is a much more defensible hypothesis as to the cause than actual decline.
  - arrosenberg 1y ago
    It sounds like you think material conditions haven’t gotten worse? Cost of housing, food and healthcare, plus flat wages seem to disagree. I think in this case people’s perception matches reality. I’ve noticed you refuse to put forward your own reasons, why is that?