You can keep telling yourself that, just don't be surprised about the results. I'd urge you to go out into some of those areas with high right-wing turnout and talk to some of the people. Or read post-election motive polls from literally any recent election.
Is "We must listen to White voters" similar to criticisms of the European Left?
- Thread starter Lime
- Start date
- Status
You can keep telling yourself that, just don't be surprised about the results. I'd urge you to go out into some of those areas with high right-wing turnout and talk to some of the people. Or read post-election motive polls from literally any recent election.
Applying two standards to natives and non-european immigrants is a major reason why a lot of people are pissed off. That the same people who complain about religious influences or feminist nano-issues would go onto the streets to shout for the acceptance of tens if not hundreds of thousands of ACTUAL patriarchic, highly religious immigrants is an irony that is not lost on the general population.
~Devil Trigger~
In favor of setting Muslim women on fire
can we have some perspective
This wasnt the "white revolution" people are making it to be.
-The democrats gain seats in the house and senate(yes not enough to take them)
- Hil won the popular vote
- less people actually voted then in the past 3 elections, with 2 unliked cadidates
- key states had close results
sure the left has some work to do, no denying but lets put the "muslim panic button so white people can like us" theory aside.
This wasnt the "white revolution" people are making it to be.
-The democrats gain seats in the house and senate(yes not enough to take them)
- Hil won the popular vote
- less people actually voted then in the past 3 elections, with 2 unliked cadidates
- key states had close results
sure the left has some work to do, no denying but lets put the "muslim panic button so white people can like us" theory aside.
Led_Zeppelin
Member
I think people are completely blinded to the reality and why people decided to vote for someone like Trump in America or why Brexit happen, people are really missing the point, it isn't about "white working people" but rather the working class and how the left and center left and the right have all sold them out and how their wages have come down greatly while the productivity has never been higher.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kd2d4_LcEig
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kd2d4_LcEig
andythinkpad
Member
How does that help people in the developed nations who wants to keep their job against the cheaper third world workers?
Imo, many leftist parties got in a serious dilemma with globalisation and cooperation and many policies they pushed ended up biting their own base. They also sucessfully catched more centrist votes ("party of teachers and civil servants" is often cited as voting base of our left), but lost the trust of their biggest former supporters.
It will take a while (and failure at the government level) until they realise that the new right is just as unreliable.
I don't think your average blue collar worker is much more racist than 15 years ago. But you won't get his vote talking about multiculturalism.
You never did.
It will take a while (and failure at the government level) until they realise that the new right is just as unreliable.
I don't think your average blue collar worker is much more racist than 15 years ago. But you won't get his vote talking about multiculturalism.
You never did.
oh and this is an excellent article on this very subject: http://fair.org/home/lashing-out-at...lame-trump-on-those-most-vulnerable-to-trump/
basically all of the "identity politics are to blame!" columns from the last week have come from people who 1) are center-left or center-right to begin with and 2) had beef with identity politics before any of this went down and are using it as a scapegoat because it confirms their prejudices.
i follow a lot of hard leftists and entirely concur with his assessment. the left wing's interpretation of the election is that democrats have done the bare minimum for people economically for years and kept assuming that holding the republican boogeyman over their voters' heads would keep a democrat in the white house, which obviously backfired as soon as their candidate was widely disliked. i haven't seen any high-profile socialists talking about throwing gays and black people overboard so we can win the trump vote, that shit is coming from people who stumped hard for hillary.
basically all of the "identity politics are to blame!" columns from the last week have come from people who 1) are center-left or center-right to begin with and 2) had beef with identity politics before any of this went down and are using it as a scapegoat because it confirms their prejudices.
i follow a lot of hard leftists and entirely concur with his assessment. the left wing's interpretation of the election is that democrats have done the bare minimum for people economically for years and kept assuming that holding the republican boogeyman over their voters' heads would keep a democrat in the white house, which obviously backfired as soon as their candidate was widely disliked. i haven't seen any high-profile socialists talking about throwing gays and black people overboard so we can win the trump vote, that shit is coming from people who stumped hard for hillary.
here's a decent high-level overview of the free trade dispute: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/09/23/495226796/episode-725-trade-show
they point out that the real problem with modern free trade deals is that they're largely unnecessary since tariffs and trade restrictions have been largely done away with, which means that agreements like the TPP mostly contain clauses designed to give handouts to specific industries (see IP enforcement) and allow big corporations to sue nations in order to strike down laws they don't like. they're not really about free trade anymore.
they point out that the real problem with modern free trade deals is that they're largely unnecessary since tariffs and trade restrictions have been largely done away with, which means that agreements like the TPP mostly contain clauses designed to give handouts to specific industries (see IP enforcement) and allow big corporations to sue nations in order to strike down laws they don't like. they're not really about free trade anymore.
The problem with these solutions is that all of that is very expensive, especially if you need to boost it on short notice. And remember we currently have a "Europe on a budget" where more debt is not something you can parade around too much. France will possibly hit a 100% of GDP public debt ratio soon, how would that work there?
And I wouldn't want to tell your "you might lose your job, but atleast you can live off of welfare!" message to anyone.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Oppo
Member
a combo mincome/automation platform if you were really bold
it doesn't, but i dont see how isolationism that will result in increased cost to manufacture and then increased cost to purchase products will help low income families either.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
And herein lies the problem. Trade globalization is hard to argue as anything other than a net good when you look at the numbers for how costs have changed, rising living standards in developing nations, etc. But the problem is that it requires possible major lifestyle and economic changes in developed nations that are incredibly hard to swallow on a cultural level
People on the left need to understand this if they want to win any further elections in Europe. All these fringe left things like the jazz-hands, the micro-aggressions and safe spaces come across as so completely alien when there are hundreds of thousands of immigrants coming into the continent that are factors worse than whatever "male patriarchy" is currently running the show.
It does not matter that logically this isn't the number one problem Europe faces, it doesn't matter that most rural voters probably rarely even have to deal with any immigrants. If you do not address these issues you will lose a significant chunk of the voters.If you are seen as focusing ONLY on issues immigrants face, like the Dutch Labour party, expect to get decimated in the polls.
For what it's worth to Dutchies, I'm currently floating between VVD, D66 and PVV it comes to the upcoming election. I'm unlikely to vote PVV as I'm pro-EU but I'll make up my mind after the debates.
That is a lie, the left has pointed out things like Iran and Saudi Arabia for decades. The only idiocy is that htey allowed extreme right to steal that point from them. They wend pavlovian to the harsh langauge against a whole group, and fell right for the trap allowing the extreme right to steal that topic from them. But really in most European countries, there had been questions regarding extreme Islamic stances before the alt right even existed.
andythinkpad
Member
Bold and run the country into the ground for sure. How many human job can be replaced by robot right now? 2-5? If that.
And the robot are all made in China anyway. Do you know Chinese companies has near monopoly of the civilian drone market right now?
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
China is going to run into the automation wall harder than anyone. Western nations have had decades to try to transition their manufacturing sector over to service jobs and while they haven't fully succeeded, they've been making progress. China is right now trying to build a healthy consumer class that can sustain their economy internally, what kind of shock to that system do you think the manufacturing automation wave is going to make, unless the government literally restricts it?
Apologies for my misunderstanding.
Oh, I don't disagree on that too much for EU. I think EU still represents an enormous chance for us Europeans (as a whole), although we need to work together to achieve that, I just don't think we (or the US for that matter) have much leverage when it comes to trade barriers. I hate to use the term, but it feels like general protectionist trade barriers could be a slippery slope.
I think the social unrest goes deeper than all that though. People see the developments, they see the uncertainy and they want politicians to tell them what their vision of the future society looks like.
Again a falsehood, the Dutch Labour Party does NOT only focus on helping immigrants, that is what their opponents successfully paint it as. The Dutch labour party is to... weak and spineless. They needed to call out these accusations much earlier, dare to attack their own coalition partner that now abuses them to gain more seats later on. And sometimes choose NOT to rule and let the coalition partner crash and burn.
Their total willingness to rule and lack of spine is what is their end. If you truly beleive that all the PVDA is doing is to help immigrants, than you really need to change your source of news. But then if you wish to vote VVD, I know enough already, there is not a dirtier party out there than that one. Not even the PVV is that dirty. They'd literally always burn down their coalition partner and lie to get in power. Not even the PVV (granted they don't have much precedent) did that (outside of the retirement age). And yes it might be from a Norwegian perspective, but if you keep up with the news, you can easily see these things.
Led_Zeppelin
Member
Then why does people would care to vote for someone that doesn't care if their livelyhood is at stake? Why support parties that sold them out so people with higher income could buy cheap shit made in China/Taiwan or whatever where workers are little more than paid slaves?
The left isn't giving anyone a reason to vote for them, unless you think identity politics actually is something important for most people when their wages have been destroyed over the last 30 years and their works got worse and worse.
No wonder the far right populist are rising, they can at least see that there is a problem with globalism and how is hurting people while the left sit in their ivory towers screaming at people that are racist or whatever when they argue that all this globalization only hurt the working class.
I don't think anyone is really suggesting throwing the minority vote away, are they? I think what people are suggesting is a modification in strategy that appeals to more voters. That means avoiding the kerfuffles of insulting people when you could potentially sway them, appealing to the fears and worries in some way - not actually capitulating. For example, in Europe with the immigration/refugee situation, it would behoove the left to convince people that they care about the safety and the well-being of the citizens who are concerned for themselves in some way, some message like 'we hear a lot of you are worried about your safety, many have probably heard stories from some loved ones that have you scared and no one should be scared in their own country. So in the sake of transparency, we'll be conducting a thorough and wide investigation to see where there might be high crime areas, provide increased security, look into methods that decrease crime the most - like building community centres and other outreach programs, etc'
The concern here however is that even with the message, you won't win over the people who are really really scared when there is another party who'll just say 'we'll kick them out and not let anyone else in' - so there is only so much the left can do in that regard. I think the point is, you don't have to and you shouldn't sell out the group's that are suffering, but it's important to take seriously the concerns that you can somewhat empathize with. In the U.S - don't suddenly jump on board the anti refugee language to appease some voters, but spend a larger percent of your time visiting and addressing people in the rust belt and talk about trade, talk about local jobs, and make the plans you have for them outshine the anti Mexican or wherever rhetoric. Don't spend any energy calling out the people who fall for the bullshit of the right. That wins you like zero votes and is a waste of time and energy. Depending how you do it, it might lose you votes.
That being said, I think the problems with the campaign in the U.S. were multi faceted, there isn't just one thing that went wrong, and I imagine it's the same in Europe - and to be fair I don't even really understand the European climate enough to know if what I'm suggesting even makes sense - however, when I hear about people asking for pragmatism and that reaching out to the white voters, this is what I think. Have a more populist platform and avoid insulting your potential voters.
The concern here however is that even with the message, you won't win over the people who are really really scared when there is another party who'll just say 'we'll kick them out and not let anyone else in' - so there is only so much the left can do in that regard. I think the point is, you don't have to and you shouldn't sell out the group's that are suffering, but it's important to take seriously the concerns that you can somewhat empathize with. In the U.S - don't suddenly jump on board the anti refugee language to appease some voters, but spend a larger percent of your time visiting and addressing people in the rust belt and talk about trade, talk about local jobs, and make the plans you have for them outshine the anti Mexican or wherever rhetoric. Don't spend any energy calling out the people who fall for the bullshit of the right. That wins you like zero votes and is a waste of time and energy. Depending how you do it, it might lose you votes.
That being said, I think the problems with the campaign in the U.S. were multi faceted, there isn't just one thing that went wrong, and I imagine it's the same in Europe - and to be fair I don't even really understand the European climate enough to know if what I'm suggesting even makes sense - however, when I hear about people asking for pragmatism and that reaching out to the white voters, this is what I think. Have a more populist platform and avoid insulting your potential voters.
You are missing the many human jobs that have already been replaced by automation.
also there are many jobs that are on course to be replaced: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-34066941
andythinkpad
Member
Protectionism is not Isolationism.
And you think cheap product is the most important thing. It's not. What people want is stable job and income, affordable housing. Cheaper product is no solution to to raising real estate cost, not for job security.
At least Trump has paid lip service to put the priority of job security above free trade.
Do what they've done in the past, explain their measures within their ideologies and how it'll influence their base. Leftists should go back to protecting the shrinking working class and Greens the environment. Conservatives can point to the power of Europe or whatever and Socialists have it even easier, they've historically always isolated themselves. It's ridiculous that leftist parties are fighting the neo liberal fight and burning themselves on it.
But they are all caught up in immigration issues and I have absolutely no idea how they can break out of that without giving in. Maybe do what this new right does and blame the EU, but it can only take so much.
So basically produce more than we need, until the earth collapses.. got it!
After all it isn't like we already have too many heavy metals dumped from cell phones alone as a major source of pollution. Nor is the amount of plastics in our oceans a problem for any animal or human. Let's just keep producing with as many jobs as possible and keep consuming. For the Great Ford!
For the Great Ford loved all his children.
Cheap products are incredibly important. How can you learn how to use a computer if all computers were still $1000+ you are talking about cutting people out higher paying job prospects. preventing people from discovering alternate lifestyles by fiscally locking them out.
I know thats how things are now and that is also a problem. I am not arguing for the status quo. I just dont see how protectionism will help lower income families.
We have continual falling cost of products what we need now is to provide people with fiscal mobility. and we can't give them industrial manufacturing jobs because those have been automated / exported to create cheaper goods. so the only other option is either for the government stimulate businesses in the country to create more service sector jobs and put in place a suitable minimum working wage, to employ people en mass so they can do infrastructure work and / or a UBI solution.
It's telling how quickly 'we should listen to the concerns of poor white voters' has been twisted into 'screw everyone else!' as if, as usual, anyone but that enclave of self-aggrandising leftists and genuinely racist hard/alt-righters is treating empathy as a zero sum game. The vast majority of people saying poor whites deserve to be listened to want everyone listened to, because it's entirely possible to address poverty and joblessness in white communities at the same time as issues in black communities and without advocating deportating Muslims and immigrants. Trump is clear proof why identity politics (prioritising and attaching a moral value to people of certain skin colours ahead of others) are fundamentally illiberal as an affront to the values of universalism and rationalism.
Yes, there was clear racism and hate in Trump's campaign and sections of his voter base, yet most of his poor supporters recognised those aspects as ugly and objectionable but voted for him despite them, because he was also the only one addressing serious concerns and being the only candidate even pretending to take them seriously. As Hillary Clinton supporters were so quick to remind everyone, there's no such thing as a perfect candidate for all people. That just makes it all the more essential that the reaction to Trump be to root out the legitimate concerns from the racism and start building bridges. That doesn't mean ignoring police violence, racial prejudice, intolerance or hate crimes. It means continuing to try and resolve traditional minority concerns, but bringing white concerns into the fold at the same time.
As for the OP's question, there is common ground between the concerns raised by Trump's election and anti-establishment sentiment in Europe, but the circumstances are very different. For one thing, even if most people want to find an equitable humanitarian solution to the refugee crisis in Europe, sheer force of numbers and mismanagement by the likes of Merkel means there are pressing issues that have to be addressed to make sure both refugees and European citizens are treated fairly and safely, which is considerably less true for the distant US, who don't have people arriving directly on their shores and can vet from afar. Brexit is again reflective of a whole other set of concerns in addition to the anti-establishment feeling and working class discontent shared with Trump. So yes, there are similarities, but they are far from the same and there won't be any single, globally-applicable answer if the left is to regain its political credibility.
Yes, there was clear racism and hate in Trump's campaign and sections of his voter base, yet most of his poor supporters recognised those aspects as ugly and objectionable but voted for him despite them, because he was also the only one addressing serious concerns and being the only candidate even pretending to take them seriously. As Hillary Clinton supporters were so quick to remind everyone, there's no such thing as a perfect candidate for all people. That just makes it all the more essential that the reaction to Trump be to root out the legitimate concerns from the racism and start building bridges. That doesn't mean ignoring police violence, racial prejudice, intolerance or hate crimes. It means continuing to try and resolve traditional minority concerns, but bringing white concerns into the fold at the same time.
As for the OP's question, there is common ground between the concerns raised by Trump's election and anti-establishment sentiment in Europe, but the circumstances are very different. For one thing, even if most people want to find an equitable humanitarian solution to the refugee crisis in Europe, sheer force of numbers and mismanagement by the likes of Merkel means there are pressing issues that have to be addressed to make sure both refugees and European citizens are treated fairly and safely, which is considerably less true for the distant US, who don't have people arriving directly on their shores and can vet from afar. Brexit is again reflective of a whole other set of concerns in addition to the anti-establishment feeling and working class discontent shared with Trump. So yes, there are similarities, but they are far from the same and there won't be any single, globally-applicable answer if the left is to regain its political credibility.
Vicetrailia
Banned
The first people to talk about the effects of globalization, automation, minimum wage and etc. are liberals.
We just got someone whose more concerned about free trade.
Led_Zeppelin
Member
Yeah but modern liberals have turn themselves into basically neo liberals, or at least the parties did. Offering no real solutions to those affected by globalization. Until the left parties stop being corporate sell outs I doubt the working class will support them and they will keep supporting nationalist parties. Just look at the election cycle in america, specially the democratic primaries, there was a lot of people in the left willingly supporting a corporate sell out over a real progressive alternative.
MHWilliams
Member
This is largely how I feel the Trump/GOP will work out.
And it won't really matter, because for all the hand-wringing about it not being racism, I feel there's a strong racial component, meaning their thoughts will align with the racist lie over the sad truth.
Because there has been a rise in the sentiment of "you should leave those problems of race or gender behind to focus on those of class instead". Not, "as well". Many of the speeches and op-eds said as much.
This, by the by, is part of why Sanders' early stump did not work on a many minority voters. In the frame of this election, many are looking at the coverage of "economic anxiety" in the form of the white working class to explain for Trump, while not wondering why that rise wasn't equal in the rest of the working class. It diagnoses one problem, while ignoring others.
This article is one of the more discussed in recent times. From a synopsis of the discussion:
Essentially, for many for whom those are strong issues of their livelihood, the call is "wait in the back again." See, similar threads on this topic.
don't you think that a large part of increasing minority turnout in the future should be progressive economic policies though? focusing on the working class would get people like this to vote again: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/u...ighborhood-didnt-vote-and-dont-regret-it.html
Can I see your statistics for this? Everything I've looked up says the complete opposite of what you wrote. http://www.poverty.org.uk/06/index.shtml
researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06955/SN06955.pdf - benefit claims breakdown by group
Minorities are one of the strongest and most reliable group of voters for the democrats, which is why their concerns (rightly) have a high priority on the party program. Abandoning them would be foolish.
But you also need to include other concerns into your message to win an election. I agree it's difficult to do that and still have a focused and clear message but something will have to be found.
Promising different special interest groups what they want to hear is not that difficult. Convincing everyone that your issue is the most important issue, is.
But you also need to include other concerns into your message to win an election. I agree it's difficult to do that and still have a focused and clear message but something will have to be found.
Promising different special interest groups what they want to hear is not that difficult. Convincing everyone that your issue is the most important issue, is.
minorities also care about things like the economy and income inequality. democrats have been counting on their votes for decades simply because republicans would roll back civil rights, but "i won't fuck you as hard as the other guy" will always fail eventually.
He's probably talking about EU citizens which have a lower unemployment rate in the UK iirc.
sugarhigh4242
Banned
Thanks for this. I see "left" being thrown around wildly in this thread. You're not LEFT if you don't at least minimally question the power of the market, corporations, and monied interests. The Democratic Party is not "The Left". The Democratic party is liberal, including some center-left viewpoints. But the principal decision-makers in the party are center-right. If it wasn't so, they wouldn't receive huge contributions from Wall St, and other large corporate interests.
Also, let’s dispel once and for all with this fiction that The Left is isolationist. The Left opposes the nation state and seeks to replace it with international socialism. Corporate-welfare bills like NAFTA and TPP have nothing to do with internationalism vs isolationism/protectionism.
I don't think the US and European political situations have the same solutions, in that while there might be similar strains that have led to the political climates in each country, the US has a two-party system and a lot of the countries we're talking about in Europe have something more akin to a parliamentary system.
If you want to win elections, right now it looks like you have to throw a bone to those disaffected voters who showed up (assuming they stick around and become a real force). I don't agree with the reductions that this means "coddle the racists". Really the Democrats could ignore them entirely if they managed to get young and Dem-leaning demographics to the polls, but the reality is that the former is probably easier than the latter, especially since the Republicans are going to do their best to add to depressed Dem turnout.
Europe has both an easier and a harder path to combat these issues as fringe and far-from-center parties are both easier to remove from power and easier to place in power.
Because someone is to the right of you don't make them center-right.
"The Left" as you describe it is a fringe group in American society, and certainly in American politics. We are in most ways now further from "international socialism" than at any point since probably the anti-Communist backlash of midcentury-last.
And business isn't inherently a right-wing monolith.
If you want to win elections, right now it looks like you have to throw a bone to those disaffected voters who showed up (assuming they stick around and become a real force). I don't agree with the reductions that this means "coddle the racists". Really the Democrats could ignore them entirely if they managed to get young and Dem-leaning demographics to the polls, but the reality is that the former is probably easier than the latter, especially since the Republicans are going to do their best to add to depressed Dem turnout.
Europe has both an easier and a harder path to combat these issues as fringe and far-from-center parties are both easier to remove from power and easier to place in power.
Because someone is to the right of you don't make them center-right.
"The Left" as you describe it is a fringe group in American society, and certainly in American politics. We are in most ways now further from "international socialism" than at any point since probably the anti-Communist backlash of midcentury-last.
And business isn't inherently a right-wing monolith.
MHWilliams
Member
That article is all over the place, pointing to many of the issues.
Economic.
Sexual Politics
Anger
Apathy
Trust (Or Celebrity?)
The framing isn't that money was the only issue. To read that article in that way is a poor understanding of it.
Nothing wrong with progressive economic policies.
People merely ask that many don't forget the issues along racial and sexual lines.
What is the message when you tell people that "Your right to walk the streets without being harassed for the color of your skin", "Your ability to get married", "Your desire for comparative pay", and "Your ability to simply go to the bathroom" are not the messages that deserve screentime? After decades of those issues being outright ignored at best?
Pretty much.
radios shipping overview
Member
There is no reason to abandon social issues and people of color in order to appeal to white working-class voters. If WWC voters don't respond to a generally inclusive message, then include specific, targeted messaging directed at their economic situations. Tell them that you're going to improve their specific lot in life without directly addressing race or encouraging divisions. For other groups, emphasize parts of the platform and use language that most directly applies to them. This will involve a lot of demographic targeting via ground game and online marketing, but the tools for this exist.
andythinkpad
Member
Did I say its not important? I said the voters decide it has lower priority than job security.
Also, why do you need cheap stuff to discover alternative lifestyle? I can start hiking tomorrow and it doesn't cost anything extra.
Maybe you don't see it because you work and life background is too far remove from the majority of the America?
The increasing service sector theory is such a dumb argument noeliberal economists tried to use to bait China to quit manufacturing.
You have a point about more infrastructure work. America pioneered it after the depression. Why didn't the Democrats or the UK Labor parties talk about it?
i understand the point of the article and agree that this election was about a lot of different issues. my point is that actually appealing to people (the entire working class and not just whites) on economic issues could easily have made the difference in an race as close as this one.
i am not saying we need to throw social issues overboard, clearly those are needed not just because they're right and just but because we can't win without the people affected by them. i'm saying that nationally democrats have run ENTIRELY on social issues and have done nothing to address the growing class divide. making a class argument to voters isn't betrayal to black voters unless you specifically toss out things like police reform and voting rights.
sugarhigh4242
Banned
One's proximity to my politics has nothing to do with it. It's a standard definition. The left opposes concentrated wealth and power, the right promotes it.
If a president makes war all over the world (even in violation of legislative rejection), implements a world-wide blanket surveillance program, and refuses to prosecute Wall St executives whose criminal fraud crashed the global economy, they're on the right side of the political axis. I don't know why it benefits anyone to argue otherwise.
I agree The Left (at least to the extent that it's an organized political force) is fringe in US politics. That's why I object to having its views misrepresented.
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
I'm interested in the rural America response when we all get basic income. That seems like where Democrats should go once Trump doesn't bring the jobs back.
Most people want handouts, but don't want handouts. I think that's a tough hurdle that's gonna' have to be crossed, and it's not really a rural-only issue.
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
Absolutely, I say that mostly in reference to seeing if they balk at it despite it being a great option (on paper), and especially if there's an element of wanting to keep it from minorities having the same trouble with money and getting good, secure jobs. I feel like we're all in this together, and the rich just have us fighting among ourselves as they have it all.
We haven't sold them out.
The world has changed. We're now in a service economy. Automation decimated the need for grunt labor. The jobs are in cities and suburbs. We shackled people to their homes with mortgages in areas that no one now wants to move to in a misguided effort to help people. People are not moving anymore- it's a huge problem.
- Status