The destruction of the wage class, the politics of resentment and Donald Trump

[Eddie Teach]

Because Sanders & Trump went ahead in the poll in Iowa.

[Razgovory]

The archdruidreport?

Sorcery and economics, it's like the 1980's all over again!

[dps]

Incidentally, has the "wage class" ever not been powerless and exploited in the history of the West? Sure, in the past the elites let them think they are better than, and can abuse, niggers, faggots, kikes and chinks - and now they are upset because they can't do it anymore - but has anything really changed in their socio-economic position? I don't think so. Equality and civil rights movements simply made them realise how shitty they have always been.

Well, that's what the Communist leaders who used to control your country would have wanted you to believe.  But the reality is (or was) closer to what the article says:  "In 1966 an American family with one breadwinner working full time at an hourly wage could count on having a home, a car, three square meals a day, and the other ordinary necessities of life, with some left over for the occasional luxury", and that certainly is a lot less true today.  Unfortunately, that line is about the only thing the article gets right.

[alfred russel]

Because Sanders & Trump went ahead in the poll in Iowa.

I sort of assumed he would have just started a new thread for that, like for every other minor world event or new slate article. 

[Caliga]

It amuses me how many poor dumb people support the GOP.  I mean, Princesca's grandfather only ever had a fourth grade education, but he's been a lifelong Democrat because, in his words, the Republicans "don't care none about the working man".  If he managed to figure that out, why can't any of them?

[Jaron]

Then why are people still posting in it now?

It takes Tim threads about half a year to become relevant.

[Jaron]

It amuses me how many poor dumb people support the GOP.  I mean, Princesca's grandfather only ever had a fourth grade education, but he's been a lifelong Democrat because, in his words, the Republicans "don't care none about the working man".  If he managed to figure that out, why can't any of them?

It is odd how much the poor blue collar GOP worker thinks a billionaire represents their values and cares about their daily struggles.

[Martinus]

Incidentally, has the "wage class" ever not been powerless and exploited in the history of the West? Sure, in the past the elites let them think they are better than, and can abuse, niggers, faggots, kikes and chinks - and now they are upset because they can't do it anymore - but has anything really changed in their socio-economic position? I don't think so. Equality and civil rights movements simply made them realise how shitty they have always been.

Well, that's what the Communist leaders who used to control your country would have wanted you to believe.  But the reality is (or was) closer to what the article says:  "In 1966 an American family with one breadwinner working full time at an hourly wage could count on having a home, a car, three square meals a day, and the other ordinary necessities of life, with some left over for the occasional luxury", and that certainly is a lot less true today.  Unfortunately, that line is about the only thing the article gets right.

Is this actually true? I am not saying that some of the hourly wage workers could not afford such lifestyle, but was it true for the majority? Or, perhaps, it was true for the whites only?

[DGuller]

It amuses me how many poor dumb people support the GOP.  I mean, Princesca's grandfather only ever had a fourth grade education, but he's been a lifelong Democrat because, in his words, the Republicans "don't care none about the working man".  If he managed to figure that out, why can't any of them?

People usually make decisions emotionally, and use rational thinking only to justify them after the fact.  For a lot of people, moralism or, let's face it, plain racism, fires up emotions on a higher intensity than economic issues.

[Syt]

It amuses me how many poor dumb people support the GOP.  I mean, Princesca's grandfather only ever had a fourth grade education, but he's been a lifelong Democrat because, in his words, the Republicans "don't care none about the working man".  If he managed to figure that out, why can't any of them?

I guess it's a function of painting the Democrats as detached liberal elite who don't know about "the real world" and want to take a way your liberties,  plus a healthy dose of patriotism, pretend folksiness, and finding convenient scapegoats.

[Razgovory]

Incidentally, has the "wage class" ever not been powerless and exploited in the history of the West? Sure, in the past the elites let them think they are better than, and can abuse, niggers, faggots, kikes and chinks - and now they are upset because they can't do it anymore - but has anything really changed in their socio-economic position? I don't think so. Equality and civil rights movements simply made them realise how shitty they have always been.

Well, that's what the Communist leaders who used to control your country would have wanted you to believe.  But the reality is (or was) closer to what the article says:  "In 1966 an American family with one breadwinner working full time at an hourly wage could count on having a home, a car, three square meals a day, and the other ordinary necessities of life, with some left over for the occasional luxury", and that certainly is a lot less true today.  Unfortunately, that line is about the only thing the article gets right.

Is this actually true? I am not saying that some of the hourly wage workers could not afford such lifestyle, but was it true for the majority? Or, perhaps, it was true for the whites only?

True for the majority and true for whites only are not mutually exclusive in the US. By far and away whites are majority, in the past it was even more so.  And the answer is, yes.  You could get a factory job with only a high school diploma (or often less), and make a comfortable living.  Were you rich?  No, not really.  But a single earner could support several dependents in a middle class lifestyle.  Was it tougher being a black or a single women?  Yeah.  It also helped a lot if you were part of union.  The Union took care of you

[dps]

Incidentally, has the "wage class" ever not been powerless and exploited in the history of the West? Sure, in the past the elites let them think they are better than, and can abuse, niggers, faggots, kikes and chinks - and now they are upset because they can't do it anymore - but has anything really changed in their socio-economic position? I don't think so. Equality and civil rights movements simply made them realise how shitty they have always been.

Well, that's what the Communist leaders who used to control your country would have wanted you to believe.  But the reality is (or was) closer to what the article says:  "In 1966 an American family with one breadwinner working full time at an hourly wage could count on having a home, a car, three square meals a day, and the other ordinary necessities of life, with some left over for the occasional luxury", and that certainly is a lot less true today.  Unfortunately, that line is about the only thing the article gets right.

Is this actually true? I am not saying that some of the hourly wage workers could not afford such lifestyle, but was it true for the majority? Or, perhaps, it was true for the whites only?

True for the majority and true for whites only are not mutually exclusive in the US. By far and away whites are majority, in the past it was even more so.  And the answer is, yes.  You could get a factory job with only a high school diploma (or often less), and make a comfortable living.  Were you rich?  No, not really.  But a single earner could support several dependents in a middle class lifestyle.  Was it tougher being a black or a single women?  Yeah.  It also helped a lot if you were part of union.  The Union took care of you

The tough part for blacks and other minorities was getting and keeping the job.  "Last hired, first fired" was a thing (it wasn't always about race;  in fact, primarily it was about seniority, but in practice, blacks were the last hired), but if you were a minority and latched onto a full-time job, yeah, you could have a decent lifestyle.  Maybe not quite as comfortable as a white worker with the same job, because there was discrimination in wages as well as in hiring, but still, a decent lifestyle.

[Camerus]

Also, since Trump's supporters are primarily working class whites (historically the largest demographic in the United States), focusing on their relative decline is the key factor in explaining his rise. The shibboleths that have governed the liberal order over the past few decades have brought few material or political advantages for this group, so I don't blame them for looking elsewhere for a champion (even though Trump would be likely to do more harm than good) no matter how much middle-class and elite finger waving it engenders.

[Ancient Demon]

Should the white working class believe that mass unskilled immigration from the 3rd world is good for them?

[Razgovory]

Thing is, they are rebelling against both parties.  They may not like the tolerance of the liberals, but they aren't really keen on Free market fundamentalism either.  I think what this shows is while they voted with Republicans they didn't really buy into to right wing economics.  They sided with right because the right was "tougher" on minorities.  I know several people got all butt-hurt about me posting Lee Atwater quotes, but the Trump voter is the type who signed on to the Republican party back in the late 1970's and 1980's. The Trump candidacy is giving that type of voter exactly what he wants.  Deport the Mexicans, ban the Muslims, put the boot down on these recent black protests (or as Trump put "rough'em up a little".