4 ms·

Society does have multiple classes, yes but one in particular dominates politics - the ownership class. See here for the relevant study: https://www.bbc.com/ne

by pydry 1y ago

Society does have multiple classes, yes but one in particular dominates politics - the ownership class. See here for the relevant study: https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746 https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746

rayiner 1y ago
That study defines “elite” as the top 10% of income earners, which is mostly skilled and knowledge workers, not owners. I can’t access the PDF but there was a reddit thread about the methodology: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskSocialScience/comments/73nbuv/in_testing_theories_of_american_politics_elites/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button https://www.reddit.com/r/AskSocialScience/comments/73nbuv/in.... So that is consistent with my point that knowledge workers have lots of political power. Also, Vox did a piece discussing subsequent research that suggests that whatever effect Gilens and Page are seeing is relatively weak: https://www.vox.com/2016/5/9/11502464/gilens-page-oligarchy-study https://www.vox.com/2016/5/9/11502464/gilens-page-oligarchy-.... I suspect you’d find a stronger correlation if you compared knowledge workers versus blue collar workers (I.e. accounted for the fact that you have fairly affluent tradespeople and medium income knowledge workers, like entry level folks who work in marketing).
- pydry 1y ago
  >That study defines “elite” as the top 10% of income earners The study does not define elite that way, it simply notes that the likelihood of a policy being implemented trends upward with income. >that is consistent with my point that knowledge workers have lots of political power. I cant see anything on this reddit thread which indicates this. >Also, Vox did a piece discussing subsequent research that suggests Im sure they did. It's not unusual for corporate backed think tanks to push back on studies which run counter to their narrative. The same thing happened with r>g, minimum wage increases across state borders, etc.
  - rayiner 1y ago
    The quote from the paper on the reddit thread discusses dividing people into income quintiles. I assume you actually read the paper and understand the methodology?
    - pydry 1y ago
      It showed a direct correlation between income and your impact on policy. It would, alas, be scientifically illiterate to assume that since they divided the public into 10 quintiles that the correlation suddenly stopped above the 90.1% threshold. And, it would be regular old illitetate to assume that crossing from 89.9% to 90% puts you firmly in the cateogory of "elite" because of how a study divided up income quintiles. There is a difference between a true elite (e.g. gets put in charge of a government department of your own creation) and somebody who just earns a lot of money and generally benefits from tax breaks lobbied for by those elites.

by pydry 1y ago

rayiner 1y ago

That study defines “elite” as the top 10% of income earners, which is mostly skilled and knowledge workers, not owners. I can’t access the PDF but there was a reddit thread about the methodology: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskSocialScience/comments/73nbuv/in_testing_theories_of_american_politics_elites/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button https://www.reddit.com/r/AskSocialScience/comments/73nbuv/in.... So that is consistent with my point that knowledge workers have lots of political power. Also, Vox did a piece discussing subsequent research that suggests that whatever effect Gilens and Page are seeing is relatively weak: https://www.vox.com/2016/5/9/11502464/gilens-page-oligarchy-study https://www.vox.com/2016/5/9/11502464/gilens-page-oligarchy-.... I suspect you’d find a stronger correlation if you compared knowledge workers versus blue collar workers (I.e. accounted for the fact that you have fairly affluent tradespeople and medium income knowledge workers, like entry level folks who work in marketing).

pydry 1y ago
>That study defines “elite” as the top 10% of income earners The study does not define elite that way, it simply notes that the likelihood of a policy being implemented trends upward with income. >that is consistent with my point that knowledge workers have lots of political power. I cant see anything on this reddit thread which indicates this. >Also, Vox did a piece discussing subsequent research that suggests Im sure they did. It's not unusual for corporate backed think tanks to push back on studies which run counter to their narrative. The same thing happened with r>g, minimum wage increases across state borders, etc.
- rayiner 1y ago
  The quote from the paper on the reddit thread discusses dividing people into income quintiles. I assume you actually read the paper and understand the methodology?
  - pydry 1y ago
    It showed a direct correlation between income and your impact on policy. It would, alas, be scientifically illiterate to assume that since they divided the public into 10 quintiles that the correlation suddenly stopped above the 90.1% threshold. And, it would be regular old illitetate to assume that crossing from 89.9% to 90% puts you firmly in the cateogory of "elite" because of how a study divided up income quintiles. There is a difference between a true elite (e.g. gets put in charge of a government department of your own creation) and somebody who just earns a lot of money and generally benefits from tax breaks lobbied for by those elites.