Quo Vadis, Democrats?

[Josquius]

I somehow doubt Raz is interested in an actual explanation why inequality is worse in the rich cities as it does seem quite elementary when you put some good faith thought behind it.

The decline of industry has stemmed the historically higher rural inequality by making those areas poorer overall.
Meanwhile the succesful parts of the economy that are really flying and dominating the world, the tech sector, by their nature aren't mass employers. They also tend to base themselves in desirable cities near universities.

So it's not really a city or even state level problem. It's national inequality. Structural inequality. Which is to blame.

[Razgovory]

IIRC for the minimum wage to have followed productivity, it should be around 25 bucks. But yeah. It's the leftists' fault when people steal shampoo and can't afford their rent or something.

If the fault is not the people governing, then who's fault is it?

The cities of America are governed by leftists? Where? The mayors of these cities can increase minimal wage?

Gimme a break. You don't fix income inequality on a city by city basis.

Democrats govern entire states, why is inequality worse in those states?  Why are we failing?

I dunno. Better vote for the pedo russian asset instead. He'll figure it out for us.

Maybe the policies of those states are driving inequality?

[Zoupa]

Maybe the policies of those states are driving inequality?

Maybe! I guess we'll never know. :sad:

[Razgovory]

Maybe the policies of those states are driving inequality?

Maybe! I guess we'll never know. :sad:

Why are you even posting here?

[Zoupa]

I respond in kind to disingenuous "questions". If you're just baiting and doing non-sequiturs, I'm not going to baby-feed you answers.

[DGuller]

You guys haven't raised the minimum wage in like 40 years and you wonder why petty crime is rampant 

Yes, it's actually not that easy to come up with an answer when you don't the same answer handy for every question.  For example, according to FBI statistics, shoplifting went up in frequency by more than 5x in the last 10 years.  Sure, you can just not think about it too hard, since you already have an answer before you know the question, but if you're not that kind of person, you may wonder why 30 years into minimum wage not being raised was the magic moment where things fell off a cliff.  Some people might wonder whether the well-publicized laws effectively decriminalizing shoplifting might have had a more direct impact.

I think it does highlight exactly the thinking that made de Blasio style leadership so destructive to both the cities themselves, and the Democratic brand.  When you have ideological explanations for everything that is happening, you don't need to collect facts or work hard to properly interpret them.

[HVC]

Why not both? Inequalities lead to petty crime and the risk of prison sentences dampens that impulse somewhat. Remove the risk and it comes to the surface. I think decriminalizing petty crime is dumb and socially ruinous too, but that doesn't address the underlying cause. You're advocating for putting masking tape over the cracks in the foundation and exclaiming "all fixed!"

[crazy canuck]

they get that we're now in an attention economy and de-risking actually just means ceding attention.

Yep

Mostly agree...and I think Obama's campaign/ability to address crowds was another side of that same coin.  I don't think Harris had that skill...she was too much in the traditional politician mode.

Trump's messages were almost always terrible, but his great skill was to speak/ramble with enough coherency to entertain his base.  And you can always tell when Trump switches to a prepared speech...he becomes instantly uncomfortable, ineloquent, and monotonous...it's like night and day.

Obama was never quite off-the-cuff as Trump...but he is smart and eloquent enough to make even a prepared speech look good.  My worry is I am not sure the leading Democrat contenders can match that...Shapiro/Pritzker and Newsom all feel pretty traditional. The good thing is, Vance doesn't have it either.

I don't think it's a question of  style. I think there is an important issue of the message being given.  Trump plays to white Christian nationalists.

Obama played to someone's concept of an ideal centrist.  And he shares a lot of of the blame for the state your country is in now.

He basically had no policy other than being popular.  Hope and change only gets you so far when you don't deliver on either.


The days of rhetorical flourish winning elections are long gone.  If that mattered, Trump would have been in single digits in popularity.

[DGuller]

Why not both? Inequalities lead to petty crime and the risk of prison sentences dampens that impulse somewhat. Remove the risk and it comes to the surface. I think decriminalizing petty crime is dumb and socially ruinous too, but that doesn't address the underlying cause. You're advocating for putting masking tape over the cracks in the foundation and exclaiming "all fixed!"

I think "inequalities lead to petty crime" is an assumption that needs to be a lot more tested than it has been.  If you buy into it, of course it makes sense to decriminalize petty crimes:  society already victimized people once by forcing them to commit crimes, now you're victimizing them again by jailing them for it.

[Razgovory]

I think the assumption that "poverty leads to crime", needs to be questioned more.  A great deal of crime has no obvious economic benefit.  On the the other hand, being a criminal is a one way ticket to poverty.

[Valmy]

I think the assumption that "poverty leads to crime", needs to be questioned more.  A great deal of crime has no obvious economic benefit.  On the the other hand, being a criminal is a one way ticket to poverty.

Well another issue is that when the rich do crimes, they aren't crimes.

[Razgovory]

I think the assumption that "poverty leads to crime", needs to be questioned more.  A great deal of crime has no obvious economic benefit.  On the the other hand, being a criminal is a one way ticket to poverty.

Well another issue is that when the rich do crimes, they aren't crimes.

When rich people commit murders, it still makes the news.  It's not obvious why a person with less money in their bank account is more likely to kill their wife.

[celedhring]

I think the assumption that "poverty leads to crime", needs to be questioned more.  A great deal of crime has no obvious economic benefit.  On the the other hand, being a criminal is a one way ticket to poverty.

I would be very surprised if property theft (and other crimes connected to it) isn't the most common offence in our societes, by a significant margin.

[Razgovory]

In the US crime reporting is screwy, so it is hard to say.  If I'd guess, people are more likely to consume illegal drugs than rob a store or a steal a car.

[Valmy]

I think the assumption that "poverty leads to crime", needs to be questioned more.  A great deal of crime has no obvious economic benefit.  On the the other hand, being a criminal is a one way ticket to poverty.

Well another issue is that when the rich do crimes, they aren't crimes.

When rich people commit murders, it still makes the news.  It's not obvious why a person with less money in their bank account is more likely to kill their wife.

So wait...you are saying that there is a correlation that having less money makes one more likely to commit crimes while at the same time saying that we should challenge the notion that having less money makes one more likely to commit crimes? Or are you saying it's not true?

You are all over the place here.