Not saying that isn't a pretty large statistic, but this almost as bad as asking this question in Vermont. The Northeast states have known sanders for years and respect him. I would be more worried for Sanders if that statistic wasn't stacked in his favor.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2016 |OT| Ask us about our performance with Latinos in Nevada
- Thread starter Makai
- Start date
- Status
Not saying that isn't a pretty large statistic, but this almost as bad as asking this question in Vermont. The Northeast states have known sanders for years and respect him. I would be more worried for Sanders if that statistic wasn't stacked in his favor.
And_Gignac
Member
Telling, VERY telling.
disastermouse
Banned
Telling, VERY telling.
Jesus. That's.....gonna be a problem for her.
Telling, VERY telling.
Yes indeedy.
I'd actually be interested to see what the income distribution is on NeoGAF for Bernie and Hillary supporters. I'm sure there are Hillary supporters on here who aren't well off and Bernie supporters who are, but sometimes I see posts about how student debt isn't that big of a deal or Hillary's pro-capitalism stance isn't worrying and it gives me the impression that some posters don't quite live in the same economic world as others.
I love reading the politics threads here because it's a completely different mindset from what I see daily being in Texas.
Just mind blowing to me that people here make Hillary out to be a centrist or even conservative, and that being pro-Capitalism is an issue.
I think it's sad that people are beginning to come to the conclusion that supporting Capitalism/free markets (with some regulation of course) is all of a sudden some awful thing. Never mind how much good this type of economic system has done in the world.
timetokill
Banned
Telling, VERY telling.
Yeah, I saw these numbers a bit earlier, and I think they really tell the tale, combined with the trustworthiness stat. Clinton's genuineness problem is going to dog her throughout the campaign season. Unless you're rich, it's hard for many to say confidently that Hillary authentically cares about their problems and can actually relate.
It's been an awful thing for a couple hundred years that has thankfully been mollified to some extent by workers' movements.
disastermouse
Banned
I make about $66k/year before taxes. Not Trump money, but not bad for an Associate's Degree. It's only because of where I live. They pay well here because rents are somewhat high here.
disastermouse
Banned
Wage slavery has been good to you, then? Eat, sleep, work, fuck, take care of the kids, pass it on to them, and then die. That sounds like a good life to you?
shinra-bansho
Member
I don't think any of those stats are that surprising. He basically won every demo in NH and income and age are associated. While the implicit or explicit attack depending upon from where, that will presumably continue, has been that she can't be trusted.
If and when Clinton is the nominee, this will have been a damaging primary.
If and when Clinton is the nominee, this will have been a damaging primary.
What's your alternative? I assume you are wanting some sort of guaranteed income for living and breathing? That's all good and well, but the money has to come from somewhere. Who is going to provide it? Government? We've seen this sort of thing play out a number of times in the past century. The results weren't exactly good.
Also, I actually am proud of my job and what I do on a daily basis. Your response makes it seem like somehow I should be angry or embarrassed that I work for a living?
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
So much of it is own goals, though. Like, if anything at least her campaign team know that frankly Clinton needs to be overruled on certain issues for her own good, because girl is she poor on the campaign trail. In the event she wins, I'm glad that came out now and not later.
We will have to actually do this some time this century, by the looks of it. In fact, compounding our unregulated Capitalistic system makes the necessity of it even greater because of the obliteration at bay.
Of course, America may be the last place on the planet to accept this, because of the social dogmas we believe.
neurosisxeno
Member
You realize a system that includes a basic income still incentivizes people to work hard correct? The basic income just replaces something like welfare and unemployment, and if you work it essentially acts as a minimum wage. The trade off is it allows people like stay at home mom's, inventors, and students--or in the case of Sweden professional gamers and other nontraditional careers--to have spending money while not having to work shit jobs for slave wages. It's overall a better system, and if Capitalism continues at the rate it's going we will need it as Globalization spreads out the total number of jobs and various professions are completely replaced or wiped out. People have a huge hard on for mentioning automation which threatens to completely eliminate entire industries. What do we do when we have 350,000,000 people and only enough jobs for 150,000,000 of them? Start having Hunger Games or some shit?
Black Republican
Member
posted?
Saturday's poor debate performance did untold damage to his standing in New Hampshire, according to pro-Rubio activists and volunteers.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...ign-hit-in-new-hampshire-not-after-the-debate
Saturday's poor debate performance did untold damage to his standing in New Hampshire, according to pro-Rubio activists and volunteers.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...ign-hit-in-new-hampshire-not-after-the-debate
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Technological unemployment on a widespread scale is rather far off into the future; for the immediate future you're just going to see frictional unemployment rise. People don't need an absolute advantage to be employed in a job over capital, only a comparative advantage, and there will likely always be jobs in which humans have a comparative advantage just because some forms of capital will be more effective than other forms of capital. The increase in employment will come as jobs which are currently comparatively labour advantaged become capital advantaged, but new jobs will replace them given time (although this may be delayed by hysteresis). Technological unemployment will only occur at the point capital's development exceeds the ability of people to reskill - something to worry about at the advent of AGI, perhaps, but not from plain automation itself.
The more worrying aspect is income inequality, which will only increase as capital becomes more productive relative to labour and rents grow ever larger than labour; but capital ownership remains circumscribed to a relatively small class. Should the status quo continue, inequality will only rise.
disastermouse
Banned
The fact that you can't imagine an alternative is telling. You do not own your life or your destiny. You rent it out one day at a time in exchange for sustenance and the hollow promise of security. The fact is, you can't make any other choice, except maybe to become a capitalist yourself.
You don't own what you do, you are owned by it. You are given a task, given a small number of options if any about how you do it, and in your free time you maintain your body and brain so you can do it all over again next week.
All of your decisions are limited to purchasing decisions. If you're an employee, you have very little direct control of your tasks. Your will belongs to your boss and his or her will belongs to his or her boss. Even the capitalist him or herself has very little free will, since capitalism de-selects any owner that doesn't operate within the constraints of the laws of capital.
Now, you may be happy with this situation. Perhaps you're very well adapted. Or perhaps you don't think too deeply about the fact that death will find you having never lived a life outside the conventions demanded by capital. Still, there's an existential dread that I see in most of the people I encounter. They do everything they can to avoid looking at it, but...
Remember that I work in hospitals. There's very little room to avoid it when you're losing limbs or suffering with chronic illness.
We owe it to our greater community to add value and service of some sort. However, Capital selects for some known goods but completely undervalues or disregards others and our entire culture and our lives within it are poorer for it.
Officerrob
Banned
Good lord, Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough are basically gloating about Trump winning. "Nobody else believed, we believed" types of stuff
Aye.
More analysis and charts obtained from here
This shit is not tenable. And I think people are beginning to wise up to the fact that the game is rigged. Prosperity of the richest of the rich hasn't exactly trickled down to the rest. Most are still saddled with enormous debt. Healthcare is still pricey and wages are still stagnant despite hard work being put in.
Morning Joe super BJing Trump.
Does anyone actually want to see Trump in like a 1v1 or 1v1v1 debate? God, the badness.
edit: I would hope Hillary could mobilize Bernie in a general election scenario should she win. Obviously, the enthusiasm for the not-candidate will never be as high as it would be for the actual candidate were he the candidate, but Bernie now enthuses a significant portion of the traditional Democratic electorate. You would need him to be involved as a very senior (and busy) surrogate.
Does anyone actually want to see Trump in like a 1v1 or 1v1v1 debate? God, the badness.
edit: I would hope Hillary could mobilize Bernie in a general election scenario should she win. Obviously, the enthusiasm for the not-candidate will never be as high as it would be for the actual candidate were he the candidate, but Bernie now enthuses a significant portion of the traditional Democratic electorate. You would need him to be involved as a very senior (and busy) surrogate.
Appoint Sanders as the official head of Getting People Out For The Midterms. Not even kidding.
Problem is given he was an independent until very recently I can't see anyone in the Clinton camp wanting to give him any sort of official capacity.
disastermouse
Banned
I'd love it if he sat it out if he's not the nominee. After all, he's not a real Democrat, right?
You can't have it both ways.
Black Republican
Member
South Carolina Primary/Debate night threads should have a fight night type theme.
Shits gonna get ugly, it always is
uh and
Shits gonna get ugly, it always is
uh and
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I agree, but his support should not be unconditional. He should use it to levy for particular issues his base care about, and refuse to endorse if those conditions are not met. Obviously these requests would have to be reasonable and probably wouldn't amount to much more than highly publicised commitments to particular reforms Clinton would probably not particularly strongly oppose anyway, but equally an unconditional endorsement would just encourage the party establishment to feel like they can walk all over this section of he base. You have to earn it.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Condition number one would be the immediate replacement of DWS and veto rights over the next DNC chair. Rybak would be a great way for Clinton to indicate she is serious about being inclusive.
Yoda
Member
I disagree, any establishment Repub who sticks around and hurts the others has a solid case to make to Trump on why he should make them VP.
If they have this much hubris in the event she wins, then prepare yourself for President Trump.
disastermouse
Banned
Do you think he'll remain a Democrat after 2016 (if he doesn't win the nomination, of course)?
QuiteWhittle
Member
Yeah she can't be Clinton's Chief of Staff and DNC chair at the same time
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I would if I were him. Gives him more leverage. Failing winning the nomination, his goal is to make sure candidates like him could win the nomination in the future. That means influencing the organizational structure of the Democrats, which is easier to do when you're a Democrat.
RE: DWS, yes, she can't be removed until January, but I still think that her replacement at the first possible opportunity for either Gabbard or Rybak should be the first precondition of any Sanders endorsement; where replacement means "no official position" and not "switched to chief of staff".
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Europe has 400 million. The world has 7 billion....
The biggest issue is how do you even come up with the revenue for such a program? I just did quick math (20k yr for 300 million people) ends up with 6 trillion a year. You can make the case that 20k a year isn't even enough.That's nearly double our federal budget not accounting for additional programs a Sanders type president would want like single payer healthcare.
That's not feasible. There isn't enough money you could tax to fund this sort of thing without completely wrecking the economy in the first place.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
God I support a lot of left leaning proposals on welfare and ubi but some of these arguments about capitalism and the necessity of this ASAP is downright silly.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Most basic income schemes would probably start as negative income schemes - the two are functionally equivalent. See Milton Friedman's proposals. Essentially, you set some threshold (we'll say $30,000), and some negative tax rate (say, 50%), and you negative tax people on the difference between their income and the threshold - so if I earn $16,000, and the threshold is $30,000, then the difference is $14,000. 50% of this is $7,000, so I get 'negative taxed' that much on my income (i.e., given it).
There's a fairly neat mathematical proof that this is functionally equivalent to a basic income scheme for all basic income schemes where income tax above the threshold is non-zero. It's basically saying "suppose we gave everyone x amount, and taxed them by y amount to make this money. Wouldn't it be easier to just give them x-y so that we don't have to handle a behemoth of a tax system?".
I expect this to be politically feasible in most Western countries within the next two decades. It might actually be faster in America, unusually, because the NIT has historically been an idea put forward by rightwing economists because it has the economic property of being largely non-distortionary.
disastermouse
Banned
Who's saying it's necessary ASAP?
As for capitalism, it can't go on forever without significant destructive wars to allow capital to resume finding profit. Capital requires the dynamic movement of money, and as it matures, it consistently concentrates wealth until a destructive event basically 'de-concentrates' it by leveling the assets of the holders of capital. Many of the wars of the last two centuries have simply been the product of capital clearing away the concentration so that it can seek profit again.
The problem is that war has become so destructive that it's hard to imagine a scenario where that doesn't vastly over-destroy not only concentrations of capital, but the engines and institutions of capital in a fairly world-wide way.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Most of sanders supporters are fine economically. And most student debt isn't the end of the world. I make 5 figures and have a loan that's also 5 figures. I live in NYC
I mean telling voters they're fine isn't popular. But NH voters are doing pretty well
Health care is the big cost that I'm worried about and think harms people.
Yeah I'm not a Marxist
disastermouse
Banned
People are terrified that a major illness could wipe them out in a country that doesn't have a guaranteed method to support them with dignity in their old age. That's a real problem especially as you approach old age.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
That's an issue but sanders isn't winning solely on hc
disastermouse
Banned
You don't have to be to have a response. If you disagree, fine - but speak to the critique. A very redistributive social democrat program could work, but it could always be rolled back and historically, they are rolled back, as they are antipathetic to the needs of capital.
Haven't seen the New Hampshire breakdown, but in Iowa Sander's was losing on healthcare. It was a big win area for Hilary overall, and voters who prioritise healthcare broke for her 2 for 1 from memory.
Coriolanus
Banned
Brazil already has somethibg quite similar to that, Bolsa-familia. Basically if you under the poverty line they'll bring you up to it (and give you a little extra acc to number of kids enrolled in school you have and stuff). Had some quite decent results, if memory serves.
Theres a bit of a hubbub about removing voting rights from people that benefit from the program because of course.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
She won among voters who prioritized healthcare 58-39, so about a 3-2 margin. Interestingly, overall voters thought she was better on healthcare by only 51-46, so in general the proportion of people who thought Sanders was better on healthcare but prioritized other issues was higher than the proportion of people who thought Clinton was better on healthcare but prioritized other issues. My suspicion is that this correlates quite well with age - you are worried about your health when you are young, but you usually worry about e.g. your job more immediately. When you're older, you don't have many personal concerns aside from healthcare in the way a young person does.
j_k_redtail
Member
I think there's something to this:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/the-anxiety-of-marco-rubio#.rg93E1PWal
Watching Rubio repeat himself was weird, but familiar: I've done that before myself, in anxious moments.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/the-anxiety-of-marco-rubio#.rg93E1PWal
Watching Rubio repeat himself was weird, but familiar: I've done that before myself, in anxious moments.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
The Bolsa Familia is fantastic, I've heard development economists rave about it for hours.
The one thing I would say about implementing a minimum income scheme is it would have to be altered for different parts of the country. Otherwise you either have a minimum income which is nowhere near enough in areas like New York, or one which is unnecessarily high and wasteful in areas which are far less expensive to live in.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked