Comment by tehjoker
5 days ago
Not true, most people are not upper-middle class anti-tax wackos. They benefit from those people being taxed.
5 days ago
Not true, most people are not upper-middle class anti-tax wackos. They benefit from those people being taxed.
In my own social/family circle, there’s no correlation between net worth and how someone leans politically. I’ve never understood why given the pretty obvious pros/cons (amount paid in taxes vs. benefits received)
That's interesting b/c I see it very obviously in mine with the partial exception of myself. The more professional and private sector their job or spouse, the more conservative they are. E.g a real estate lawyer is conservative, a lawyer for the state is liberal, a software engineer is a communist, and the musicians are libertarians or socialist-lite.
Professional or artisanal work are petit bourgeois positions, so are flexible in their outlook regardless of income.
I have rural farmers and truck drivers in my extended family. That stereotype is low income + conservative.
1 reply →
The electorate in the U.S. commonly votes against its own interests.
Pithy, but not true.
That's why you phrase it as "woke liberals turning your children gay!"
In USA K-12 education costs about $300k
350 million people, want to get 175 million of them better educated, but we've already spent $52 trillion dollars on educating them so far
The people most vociferously for conservative values are middle class, small business owners, or upper class, though the true upper class are libertine (notice who participated in the Epstein affair). The working class is filled with all kinds of very diverse people united by the fact they have to work for a living and often can't afford e.g. expensive weddings. Some of them are religious, a whole bunch aren't. It's easy to be disillusioned with formal institutions that seem to not care at all about you.
Unfortunately, a lot of these people have either concluded it is too difficult to vote, can't vote, or that their votes don't matter (I don't think they're wrong). Their unions were also destroyed. Some of them vote against their interests, but it's not clear that their interests are ever represented, so they vote for change instead.
> Their unions were also destroyed.
By policy changes giving unions less power, enacted by politicians that were mostly voted for by a majority, which is mostly composed of the working class. Was this people voting against their interests? (Almost literally yes, but you could argue that their ideological preference for weaker unions trumps their economic interest in stronger unions.)
3 replies →