"An inescapable web of scams"
July 24, 2022 5:07 PM Subscribe
American conservatism, which is demographically terminal and knows it, is acting like a moribund billionaire adding sadistic codicils to his will. Through the internet, we could peer enviously at our neighbors in civilized countries, who get monthlong vacations, don’t have to devote decades to paying for their college degrees, and aren’t terrified of going broke if they get sick. To young people, America seems less like a country than an inescapable web of scams, and “hard work” less like a virtue than a propaganda slogan, inane as “Just say no.”
Midcentury science fiction writers assumed that the increased productivity brought on by mechanization would give workers an oppressive amount of leisure time, that our greatest threats would be boredom and ennui. But these authors’ prodigious imaginations were hobbled by their humanity and rationality; they’d forgotten that the world is ordered not by reason or decency but by rapacious avarice.
Define: Tumbrel
Archived linky link
Midcentury science fiction writers assumed that the increased productivity brought on by mechanization would give workers an oppressive amount of leisure time, that our greatest threats would be boredom and ennui. But these authors’ prodigious imaginations were hobbled by their humanity and rationality; they’d forgotten that the world is ordered not by reason or decency but by rapacious avarice.
Define: Tumbrel
Archived linky link
This is why so much of my free time is spent researching countries where the dollar goes further than it does here. Faith in the future of America? Oh hell no. What I have is opinions on the best places to flee to in Eastern Europe. I'm gonna go grow olives in Croatia.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 6:00 PM on July 24, 2022 [6 favorites]
posted by DirtyOldTown at 6:00 PM on July 24, 2022 [6 favorites]
The thing that gets me though, as sympathetic as I am at the individuals living in the USA, is that very little of that political energy stays contained in the country. I can't vote those lobbying movement out, at least not directly in the same manner domestic citizens could, but if an anti-choice administration etc gets voted in and/or get political clout it still impacts us somehow, through international aid for example but also in G2G stuff. This used to be mainly a good source for change on balance (reproductive rights gets a lot of support worldwide; affirmative action as well) but it's mainly a description of how power moves so in between that there's anticommunist funding now antiterrorism, and when I was growing up, Reaganomics and privatization.
Student loans came here in my 2000s as a result of that American idea. Student loans also became a thing in the UK (but unevenly applied. Scotland iirc still doesn't charge uni fees to Scottish residents). Zero-hours contracts. (ETA: NYPD provides training to our forces here, do you know? I've seen super armoured cars being driven here as well.) Political Christian evangelicalism as well, which provides unaddressed crosswinds to the growing Islamic conservatism here that also supports it while not yet erupting in stochastic terrorism lone shooter style the way it has in Singapore.
IDK, in some way, I hope my comment provides some food for thought. It's a person's right to seek better life, and if you want to escape the wave, why won't you? But where I am I can't seem to escape shit. But hey, at least I have better banking facilities at the individual level. For now.
posted by cendawanita at 6:22 PM on July 24, 2022 [13 favorites]
Student loans came here in my 2000s as a result of that American idea. Student loans also became a thing in the UK (but unevenly applied. Scotland iirc still doesn't charge uni fees to Scottish residents). Zero-hours contracts. (ETA: NYPD provides training to our forces here, do you know? I've seen super armoured cars being driven here as well.) Political Christian evangelicalism as well, which provides unaddressed crosswinds to the growing Islamic conservatism here that also supports it while not yet erupting in stochastic terrorism lone shooter style the way it has in Singapore.
IDK, in some way, I hope my comment provides some food for thought. It's a person's right to seek better life, and if you want to escape the wave, why won't you? But where I am I can't seem to escape shit. But hey, at least I have better banking facilities at the individual level. For now.
posted by cendawanita at 6:22 PM on July 24, 2022 [13 favorites]
I’m not actually clear what Kreider is suggesting here: everyone has grown sick of capitalism and dropped out, and now they need to rouse themselves to… overthrow capitalism? Fix the environment? Whatever work truly motivates them? There’s this missing connection point here. He’s taken a victory lap on being right that people didn’t need to be “busy” at work, but then kind of fizzles out with a demand that people get busy at something. Humanity isn’t actually a single group with a unified agenda, sir…
posted by Going To Maine at 6:25 PM on July 24, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by Going To Maine at 6:25 PM on July 24, 2022 [2 favorites]
I had a small stroke about 6 years ago, sold my store, and, thinking I was soon going to die from a "proper" stroke, I set about trying to find rich people to hire me to look after their pets or homes while they travelled. Mostly, I just wanted to spend my final days swimming in pools and sleeping in extravagant homes. Truth be told, I'd do it for "free" if it didn't cost me anything. It worked. I spent a lot of time in Los Angeles, and less time in Vanuatu, Spain, and the Dominican Republic. All homes that weren't right on the ocean had a pool. I didn't pay rent, paid for food only sometimes, and walked or drove or was driven, cost-free, everywhere I needed to go. In a couple places, a cook made my meals.
Unexpectedly, I'm still alive.
Living in those places, I spent much time with the staff (housekeepers, cooks, chauffeurs) and their family and friends, and quickly realized how much happier their lives were than my own had been back when I was living a "good life" in Toronto. I started to become fascinated with places where you could live relatively cheaply if you just altered your expectations a little bit.
Then, Covid hit. I've now been trapped in Toronto for more than two years (after 5 months, I left Vanuatu on March 4, 2020) and, I have to say, most days I interact with multiple people — friends, clients, etc. — who could retire to one of these places (not LA, obviously), or someplace similar, and my mind boggles at why they insist that they must work themselves to the bone, usually to the greater enrichment of someone else.
Anyone who owns a home in Toronto could easily sell and move and never work another day in their life, not to mention never shovel another damn walkway.
For the vast majority of the North American world, work is death. If you can figure a way out of it, do. You will not regret it.
posted by dobbs at 6:34 PM on July 24, 2022 [80 favorites]
Unexpectedly, I'm still alive.
Living in those places, I spent much time with the staff (housekeepers, cooks, chauffeurs) and their family and friends, and quickly realized how much happier their lives were than my own had been back when I was living a "good life" in Toronto. I started to become fascinated with places where you could live relatively cheaply if you just altered your expectations a little bit.
Then, Covid hit. I've now been trapped in Toronto for more than two years (after 5 months, I left Vanuatu on March 4, 2020) and, I have to say, most days I interact with multiple people — friends, clients, etc. — who could retire to one of these places (not LA, obviously), or someplace similar, and my mind boggles at why they insist that they must work themselves to the bone, usually to the greater enrichment of someone else.
Anyone who owns a home in Toronto could easily sell and move and never work another day in their life, not to mention never shovel another damn walkway.
For the vast majority of the North American world, work is death. If you can figure a way out of it, do. You will not regret it.
posted by dobbs at 6:34 PM on July 24, 2022 [80 favorites]
It'd be nice if you didn't export your scams. Conservative MPs will happily feed the NHS piecemeal to the greedlords. It's a warped worldview, when you can look at an institution like the NHS, or medicare here in Australia, and decide the problem is profitability. They're not making enough money! That's what they call unsustainable, it's why there need to be cuts - and why privatization is desirable. The horror of it, people are being treated, but look how much money is being hurt.
Scam capitalism gnaws away at public ownership wherever it can grip, not just the US.
posted by adept256 at 6:36 PM on July 24, 2022 [18 favorites]
Scam capitalism gnaws away at public ownership wherever it can grip, not just the US.
posted by adept256 at 6:36 PM on July 24, 2022 [18 favorites]
look, the key is to get out if you can, even if it's just temporary - then it's time to figure out what to do - i didn't think he was giving us any program than just that - the program is up to us, not him
posted by pyramid termite at 7:02 PM on July 24, 2022
posted by pyramid termite at 7:02 PM on July 24, 2022
*Is* American conservatism demographically moribund? I'm not that sure. The American conservative movement has embraced various strategies like making swing states so inhospitable to liberals they move away (Florida), mass deportation of immigrants, and (now) forced birth. And it also somehow seems to be the case that even while they embrace those policies, they are successfully recruiting among young people including young people of color. There's gains among Hispanic people in the republican party too. Support for an authoritarian / fascist style of government is rising. It's too soon to think the future will be one way or the other.
posted by subdee at 7:39 PM on July 24, 2022 [30 favorites]
posted by subdee at 7:39 PM on July 24, 2022 [30 favorites]
Not cool to post this on a Sunday night you guys, with a Monday looming.
posted by newdaddy at 8:02 PM on July 24, 2022 [12 favorites]
posted by newdaddy at 8:02 PM on July 24, 2022 [12 favorites]
American conservatism demographically moribund? I'm not that sure.
We don't just have to speculate; people have been paid good money to answer this question. From a 2020 Pew Research report:
The other factor that bodes poorly for Republicans is increasing rates of higher education. Say what you will about the quality of American higher ed (and lord knows I have), there certainly seems to be a correlation between having received higher education and more progressive voting preferences. To wit:
Personally, I feel pretty strongly that the US national political system is designed in such a way that there will always be two main political parties; the likely scenarios are thus the replacement of the Republican party by a different dominant party (such as has happened a few times in US history), or a gradual internal realignment of the Republicans, in order to maintain just enough voters to be politically relevant.
There was a period of time in the late 90s and early 00s, at least from where I was sitting in northern New England, where it seemed like the Libertarians were gaining enough steam that they might eventually become the second party as the Republicans aged out. However, that… didn't occur.
Instead, the Republicans continue to ride the razor's edge: maintaining just enough votes to be able to push their agenda (and, in the case of individual political actors, attract donations from the wealthy by virtue of this ability). In 2016 they managed to unexpectedly energize their base via social media (and some level of Russian meddling, and straight-up propaganda) enough to eke out an Electoral College win. But it doesn't seem to change the fundamentals: their base is dying, and a more-educated younger generation is producing new Republicans too slowly to replace them. Eventually, they will have to find a way to appeal to younger voters, or risk losing their ability to deliver the goods politically to donors. (This doesn't magically happen when they fall below 50%, though. Due to intentional over-representation of rural areas, the Republicans have been doing a fine job maintaining control of things despite a lack of raw numbers, and will certainly try to entrench that minority rule if possible.)
Some conservative commentators claim there's a sort of Nth (values generally vary between 4 and 6) Great Awakening in the offing, and this will turn things around for social conservatism writ large. I've seen no actual evidence of this, though, and it seems like yet another scam narrative used to keep their base voting and donating right up to their last breath.
posted by Kadin2048 at 9:53 PM on July 24, 2022 [22 favorites]
We don't just have to speculate; people have been paid good money to answer this question. From a 2020 Pew Research report:
The demographic profile of voters has changed in important ways over the past two decades. Overall, the electorate is getting older, and this is seen more among Republican voters than among Democrats. […] A majority of Republican voters – and half of Democrats – are 50 and older. In addition, the electorate, like the U.S. population, has become much more racially and ethnically diverse. This shift is reflected much more in the demographic profile of Democratic voters than among Republicans.The numbers are in there for those that care, but basically: it doesn't look good for Republicans. It's not something that's going to cause an electoral collapse overnight, but if you were a brand manager selling something to that demographic, you'd probably be concerned.
The other factor that bodes poorly for Republicans is increasing rates of higher education. Say what you will about the quality of American higher ed (and lord knows I have), there certainly seems to be a correlation between having received higher education and more progressive voting preferences. To wit:
The educational landscape of the U.S. has changed dramatically since 1996, […] At that time, nearly half of registered voters (47%) had never attended college; […] Today, only 32% have never attended college, […]While the Republican party has made some inroads into non-white demographics (going from 6% in '94 to 17% in 2019), the Dems went from 23% to 40% in the same period. They're not keeping up.
[In 1996,] voters with no college experience made up about half of Democratic voters (51%); today, just 28% have not attended college. The share of Democratic voters with at least a four-year degree has increased from 22% to 41%. During the same period, the share of Republican voters with a four-year college degree is mostly unchanged (27% then to 30% today) and is down from 2012, when 34% of Republicans had a four-year college degree.
Personally, I feel pretty strongly that the US national political system is designed in such a way that there will always be two main political parties; the likely scenarios are thus the replacement of the Republican party by a different dominant party (such as has happened a few times in US history), or a gradual internal realignment of the Republicans, in order to maintain just enough voters to be politically relevant.
There was a period of time in the late 90s and early 00s, at least from where I was sitting in northern New England, where it seemed like the Libertarians were gaining enough steam that they might eventually become the second party as the Republicans aged out. However, that… didn't occur.
Instead, the Republicans continue to ride the razor's edge: maintaining just enough votes to be able to push their agenda (and, in the case of individual political actors, attract donations from the wealthy by virtue of this ability). In 2016 they managed to unexpectedly energize their base via social media (and some level of Russian meddling, and straight-up propaganda) enough to eke out an Electoral College win. But it doesn't seem to change the fundamentals: their base is dying, and a more-educated younger generation is producing new Republicans too slowly to replace them. Eventually, they will have to find a way to appeal to younger voters, or risk losing their ability to deliver the goods politically to donors. (This doesn't magically happen when they fall below 50%, though. Due to intentional over-representation of rural areas, the Republicans have been doing a fine job maintaining control of things despite a lack of raw numbers, and will certainly try to entrench that minority rule if possible.)
Some conservative commentators claim there's a sort of Nth (values generally vary between 4 and 6) Great Awakening in the offing, and this will turn things around for social conservatism writ large. I've seen no actual evidence of this, though, and it seems like yet another scam narrative used to keep their base voting and donating right up to their last breath.
posted by Kadin2048 at 9:53 PM on July 24, 2022 [22 favorites]
Read this account of people living hand-to-mouth in Maine. Indescribably bleak.
posted by awfurby at 12:30 AM on July 25, 2022 [10 favorites]
posted by awfurby at 12:30 AM on July 25, 2022 [10 favorites]
Web of Scams is a pretty perfect description of my thinking of America circa 2014/5 when I started seriously researching how to escape. It's just scams all the way down.
Escaped last November but as other real life Europeans have pointed out, American scams are eminently exportable. I'm pretty concerned about the farmer's protests happening here in Netherlands right now -- a lot of the rhetoric (There is no COVID crisis! There is no climate crisis! Resist the tyranny of the government!) and some of the tactics (drive large vehicles around and blare horns as a means of protest) are eerily familiar and scary.
posted by lazaruslong at 1:00 AM on July 25, 2022 [5 favorites]
Escaped last November but as other real life Europeans have pointed out, American scams are eminently exportable. I'm pretty concerned about the farmer's protests happening here in Netherlands right now -- a lot of the rhetoric (There is no COVID crisis! There is no climate crisis! Resist the tyranny of the government!) and some of the tactics (drive large vehicles around and blare horns as a means of protest) are eerily familiar and scary.
posted by lazaruslong at 1:00 AM on July 25, 2022 [5 favorites]
A lot of older and conservative people in Europe do see the USA as being The Answer, and a lot of the same cons are being pulled - privatisation, great replacement, etc. The difference is that the standard of living is much higher, and a lot of Europeans just don’t understand how poorly America has it, in the same way that Americans don’t understand that things like parental leave and dentistry are standard. Hell, even sick leave has amazed a few American friends of mine.
posted by The River Ivel at 4:40 AM on July 25, 2022 [12 favorites]
posted by The River Ivel at 4:40 AM on July 25, 2022 [12 favorites]
I've seen the claim that, in a hierarchical society, the lack of publicly funded dental care is a feature, not a bug, because publicly funded dental care would destroy a reliable indicator of a person's socioeconomic class, namely the condition of their teeth.
posted by acb at 5:25 AM on July 25, 2022 [7 favorites]
posted by acb at 5:25 AM on July 25, 2022 [7 favorites]
The difference is that the standard of living is much higher, and a lot of Europeans just don’t understand how poorly America has it
Just wanna point out, as the fourth comment in this FPP, my non-american pov is entirely as a Southeast Asian. We haven't fully eradicated polio as a region, meaning it's not even generational memory and we already have antivaxxers. For example. We have hard-won labour gains (against the context of international movements inc american labour) and via the same dynamics of power, those same gains are being eroded via american scams. Public healthcare is being actively under threat by American private notions and unlike Europeans i guess i can't say with any certainty if our quality of life as a region (and maybe for other regions) is that significantly better. If it were true, more Americans would want to uproot themselves here beyond the young digital nomads and bougie expats looking to stretch their money, right?
posted by cendawanita at 5:53 AM on July 25, 2022 [8 favorites]
Just wanna point out, as the fourth comment in this FPP, my non-american pov is entirely as a Southeast Asian. We haven't fully eradicated polio as a region, meaning it's not even generational memory and we already have antivaxxers. For example. We have hard-won labour gains (against the context of international movements inc american labour) and via the same dynamics of power, those same gains are being eroded via american scams. Public healthcare is being actively under threat by American private notions and unlike Europeans i guess i can't say with any certainty if our quality of life as a region (and maybe for other regions) is that significantly better. If it were true, more Americans would want to uproot themselves here beyond the young digital nomads and bougie expats looking to stretch their money, right?
posted by cendawanita at 5:53 AM on July 25, 2022 [8 favorites]
The numbers are in there for those that care, but basically: it doesn't look good for Republicans. It's not something that's going to cause an electoral collapse overnight, but if you were a brand manager selling something to that demographic, you'd probably be concerned.
Genuine not-snarking question: is there anything in this comment that wasn't also true 20 years ago? The demographic shifts, the razor-thin margin that always seems to be on the verge of tipping toward the Dems but never does, the vague-but-supposedly-imminent Great Awakening... this has been the state of the GOP for my entire adult life, and while logically it seems doomed, there's always another trick in their bag. Voter suppression seems to be working pretty well, and is only going to get worse now that the Court is solidly red. An aging electorate seems like a demographic timebomb, but it affects both parties, and young people have categorically refused to vote for decades. And the GOP's tendency to field the absolute worst candidates imaginable doesn't seem to actually hurt them--you could put John Wayne Gacy behind a podium with an (R) on it, and have him consume a human being on national television, and he'd still pull 35% or more of the vote because the (R) means he's less offensive than whatever milquetoast liberal he's facing.
posted by Mayor West at 6:57 AM on July 25, 2022 [23 favorites]
Genuine not-snarking question: is there anything in this comment that wasn't also true 20 years ago? The demographic shifts, the razor-thin margin that always seems to be on the verge of tipping toward the Dems but never does, the vague-but-supposedly-imminent Great Awakening... this has been the state of the GOP for my entire adult life, and while logically it seems doomed, there's always another trick in their bag. Voter suppression seems to be working pretty well, and is only going to get worse now that the Court is solidly red. An aging electorate seems like a demographic timebomb, but it affects both parties, and young people have categorically refused to vote for decades. And the GOP's tendency to field the absolute worst candidates imaginable doesn't seem to actually hurt them--you could put John Wayne Gacy behind a podium with an (R) on it, and have him consume a human being on national television, and he'd still pull 35% or more of the vote because the (R) means he's less offensive than whatever milquetoast liberal he's facing.
posted by Mayor West at 6:57 AM on July 25, 2022 [23 favorites]
American conservatism demographically moribund? I'm not that sure.
Conservatives know that they are running out of time to contest free and fair elections and they’re responding by ending free and fair elections.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 7:34 AM on July 25, 2022 [18 favorites]
Conservatives know that they are running out of time to contest free and fair elections and they’re responding by ending free and fair elections.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 7:34 AM on July 25, 2022 [18 favorites]
Indeed. Republicans themselves are not, and have not been, acting like they're confident they can appeal to a majority. They have only won an outright majority of the popular vote once this century; it's just our stupid Electoral College (and, in 2000, a corrupt Supreme Court) that lets them ooze into the Oval Office.
posted by Gelatin at 7:39 AM on July 25, 2022 [5 favorites]
posted by Gelatin at 7:39 AM on July 25, 2022 [5 favorites]
is there anything in this comment that wasn't also true 20 years ago?
That's kinda what the Pew Research article gets into; it specifically covers the past ~20 years. In short, both parties have gotten older, but the Republicans are aging faster than Democrats. The Republican party is marginally less white than it used to be, but it's diversifying more slowly than the nation as a whole. The number of college-educated Republican voters has collapsed, while the number of college-educated Democrats has gone up, along with there being more college-educated people in the US in general. None of these trends are particularly new. The Republicans are aging, and their Boomer base might have one foot in the grave, but they're still able to make it to the polls. (They did literally kill off a whole bunch of their voters via Covid denialism though; bold choice there.)
There's really two significant things that have happened in the past 20 years:
One is that the Republicans have shown that they are better (vastly better, I'd argue) at actually playing the game of politics than the Democrats. This is likely because they don't give a shit about actually governing. But they're enable to enforce party discipline and vote as a consistent bloc with much more regularity than Democrats, and this lets them squeeze the maximum influence out of their votes. "Give me what I want or I'll burn the whole country down, so help me God" is an… advantageous negotiating position.
Two, the Republicans lit a fire under their base and swing voters in 2016 like nothing that's been seen in American politics in years. Their use (or maybe the Russians' use, hard to say) of social media was a game-changer, along with the realization that the truth is definitely out of style. Maybe it's specifically because their base is getting older and engaging with the world less, except through Fox and social media, that they were able to pull off the bald-faced lies that became their stock in trade? I think there's probably something to that. Plus, frankly, at the same time that TrumpCo was lighting a fire under the undereducated white precariat by screaming about Mexican rape caravans coming for their daughters, the Democrats weren't really doing much to excite voters. Clinton was, although novel as a female candidate with an actual shot at the Presidency, not exactly new material.
So, yeah: even though the Republicans are grabbing a falling blade demographically, they're working what they've got a lot harder. In 2016, Trump got 64% of white non-college-educated voters; the Democrats only 18%. By US national-election standards that's not just a landslide, it's an absolutely one-sided slaughter. And while 'white non-college-grads' are in terminal demographic decline both due to increasing electorate diversity and education, there are still quite a few of them out there, and Trump was able to swing them to his side in large numbers.
It's arguably a stupid strategy, and going into 2016 I don't think you'd have found many analysts who would have thought it would work. (Though, "it's not stupid if it works".) But it doesn't seem to put them on a path to long-term success, unless they can either suppress likely-Democrat voters (no mail-in ballots, limited polling locations, short hours, etc.) or just straight-up steal elections.
Long-term, they're a bit fucked. Eventually they'll have to realign the party to continue getting just enough votes to stay in power (and arguably they were moving that way before Trump showed up). But the way the US system is set up, they can probably maintain a credible (i.e. donor-relevant) level of political power even if they're only polling at ~45% or less, if they focus mainly on critical swing voters and get every last old, white person to the polls.
If I could give one piece of advice to the Democrats re Presidential elections (aside from "try to stop them from stealing it, best you can"), it would be to fix the goddamn primary process. Eliminate superdelegates. Stop the fuckery with Iowa and New Hampshire getting to go first. Target swing-voter demographics and have the states with the largest numbers of in-play EC votes go first, so that they drive the bus, followed by the base states. Don't prematurely write off demographic groups just because they're doomed in the long term—in the long term, we're all dead.
posted by Kadin2048 at 8:31 AM on July 25, 2022 [7 favorites]
That's kinda what the Pew Research article gets into; it specifically covers the past ~20 years. In short, both parties have gotten older, but the Republicans are aging faster than Democrats. The Republican party is marginally less white than it used to be, but it's diversifying more slowly than the nation as a whole. The number of college-educated Republican voters has collapsed, while the number of college-educated Democrats has gone up, along with there being more college-educated people in the US in general. None of these trends are particularly new. The Republicans are aging, and their Boomer base might have one foot in the grave, but they're still able to make it to the polls. (They did literally kill off a whole bunch of their voters via Covid denialism though; bold choice there.)
There's really two significant things that have happened in the past 20 years:
One is that the Republicans have shown that they are better (vastly better, I'd argue) at actually playing the game of politics than the Democrats. This is likely because they don't give a shit about actually governing. But they're enable to enforce party discipline and vote as a consistent bloc with much more regularity than Democrats, and this lets them squeeze the maximum influence out of their votes. "Give me what I want or I'll burn the whole country down, so help me God" is an… advantageous negotiating position.
Two, the Republicans lit a fire under their base and swing voters in 2016 like nothing that's been seen in American politics in years. Their use (or maybe the Russians' use, hard to say) of social media was a game-changer, along with the realization that the truth is definitely out of style. Maybe it's specifically because their base is getting older and engaging with the world less, except through Fox and social media, that they were able to pull off the bald-faced lies that became their stock in trade? I think there's probably something to that. Plus, frankly, at the same time that TrumpCo was lighting a fire under the undereducated white precariat by screaming about Mexican rape caravans coming for their daughters, the Democrats weren't really doing much to excite voters. Clinton was, although novel as a female candidate with an actual shot at the Presidency, not exactly new material.
So, yeah: even though the Republicans are grabbing a falling blade demographically, they're working what they've got a lot harder. In 2016, Trump got 64% of white non-college-educated voters; the Democrats only 18%. By US national-election standards that's not just a landslide, it's an absolutely one-sided slaughter. And while 'white non-college-grads' are in terminal demographic decline both due to increasing electorate diversity and education, there are still quite a few of them out there, and Trump was able to swing them to his side in large numbers.
It's arguably a stupid strategy, and going into 2016 I don't think you'd have found many analysts who would have thought it would work. (Though, "it's not stupid if it works".) But it doesn't seem to put them on a path to long-term success, unless they can either suppress likely-Democrat voters (no mail-in ballots, limited polling locations, short hours, etc.) or just straight-up steal elections.
Long-term, they're a bit fucked. Eventually they'll have to realign the party to continue getting just enough votes to stay in power (and arguably they were moving that way before Trump showed up). But the way the US system is set up, they can probably maintain a credible (i.e. donor-relevant) level of political power even if they're only polling at ~45% or less, if they focus mainly on critical swing voters and get every last old, white person to the polls.
If I could give one piece of advice to the Democrats re Presidential elections (aside from "try to stop them from stealing it, best you can"), it would be to fix the goddamn primary process. Eliminate superdelegates. Stop the fuckery with Iowa and New Hampshire getting to go first. Target swing-voter demographics and have the states with the largest numbers of in-play EC votes go first, so that they drive the bus, followed by the base states. Don't prematurely write off demographic groups just because they're doomed in the long term—in the long term, we're all dead.
posted by Kadin2048 at 8:31 AM on July 25, 2022 [7 favorites]
The difference is that the standard of living is much higher, and a lot of Europeans just don’t understand how poorly America has it, in the same way that Americans don’t understand that things like parental leave and dentistry are standard.
I don't think this is correct. The average standard of living in Europe may be higher, but the top around 25% (maybe lower, maybe a bit higher) stand of living in the US is far higher. That's why universal healthcare in the US is a non-starter: the upper class is actually very happy with the medical care they receive.
So, yeah: even though the Republicans are grabbing a falling blade demographically
I think this analysis is far too hung up on the Presidential election. Governors: 28 Republicans vs 22 Democrats. Generally Republican states like TX and FL gained seats in Congress, generally Democratic ones like CA, NY, IL lost seats. Also at the city and state level 'Republican' and 'Democrat' do not correlate to national party platform beliefs specifically.
posted by The_Vegetables at 8:44 AM on July 25, 2022 [1 favorite]
I don't think this is correct. The average standard of living in Europe may be higher, but the top around 25% (maybe lower, maybe a bit higher) stand of living in the US is far higher. That's why universal healthcare in the US is a non-starter: the upper class is actually very happy with the medical care they receive.
So, yeah: even though the Republicans are grabbing a falling blade demographically
I think this analysis is far too hung up on the Presidential election. Governors: 28 Republicans vs 22 Democrats. Generally Republican states like TX and FL gained seats in Congress, generally Democratic ones like CA, NY, IL lost seats. Also at the city and state level 'Republican' and 'Democrat' do not correlate to national party platform beliefs specifically.
posted by The_Vegetables at 8:44 AM on July 25, 2022 [1 favorite]
Forgot to finish my thought:
Generally Republican states like TX and FL gained seats in Congress, generally Democratic ones like CA, NY, IL lost seats.
And Democratic led states don't seem to care that much about this. They peddle in ideas about 'inclusiveness' but lost seats. Oh well.
posted by The_Vegetables at 8:48 AM on July 25, 2022
Generally Republican states like TX and FL gained seats in Congress, generally Democratic ones like CA, NY, IL lost seats.
And Democratic led states don't seem to care that much about this. They peddle in ideas about 'inclusiveness' but lost seats. Oh well.
posted by The_Vegetables at 8:48 AM on July 25, 2022
American conservatism demographically moribund? I'm not that sure.
Nor am I. Yes there is analysis that looks at the current voting demographics of, say, the Republican party but that isn't quite the same as "conservatism".
I would also add that the counter-majoritarian institutions of the US are very strong and that it may be possible for a demographic minority to maintain enormous control for many decades to come. Indeed, Americans broadly believe that abortions should remain legal, Americans want all kinds of things by large majorities that the current system isn't going to deliver for them.
I also think that it is widely exaggerated the degree to which American conservative ideas are directly exported. In most cases, these neoliberal ideas originated across a broad range of countries. I think left-wing people in the UK, who like their right-wing counterparts can usually only read English, just assume that these ideas are coming directly from American conservatives when in many cases they do not.
So if you're hyper-online and reading English language twitter, you're then inevitably going to see any conservative impulse in an English language country as being an import from whatever is the perceived most conservative English language country, even when it actually comes from either a common neoliberal impulse or (less commonly these days) from a throne-and-altar conservatism that is actually more of an import *to* the US than the other way around. When CPAC holds a conference in Budapest, it's not to spread American conservative ideas to Hungary.
I have a lot more sympathy for that point of view from the global periphery than I do from non-US countries in the metropolitan core. In general, I have some suspicion of any argument that does away with domestic political responsibility in order to say that "the US" or "the Russians" made domestic elites or a domestic electorate do something against their actual will. This is why I have a lot more sympathy for the view in countries where the US and other governments may indeed have enforced a political programme
A lot of the neoliberal playbook was popularised by Thatcher and not Reagan and in many other countries has been rolled-out by centre-right forces who *always* believed those things for reasons that had nothing to do with the US. My mental model is not so much that these things spread from the US but that with fall of the Soviet Union, there was no longer a need for the bourgeoisie in many countries to make tactical and limited concessions to workers at all. Not that the USSR was a good thing but its existence was a counter-point to the naturalisation of liberal capitalism. Now that it has failed and been replaced by a state that no longer even pretends that it believes in common ownership, we are in that end-of-history place where Tony Blair could say that being against globalisation was like being against the tides.
posted by atrazine at 8:57 AM on July 25, 2022 [8 favorites]
Nor am I. Yes there is analysis that looks at the current voting demographics of, say, the Republican party but that isn't quite the same as "conservatism".
I would also add that the counter-majoritarian institutions of the US are very strong and that it may be possible for a demographic minority to maintain enormous control for many decades to come. Indeed, Americans broadly believe that abortions should remain legal, Americans want all kinds of things by large majorities that the current system isn't going to deliver for them.
I also think that it is widely exaggerated the degree to which American conservative ideas are directly exported. In most cases, these neoliberal ideas originated across a broad range of countries. I think left-wing people in the UK, who like their right-wing counterparts can usually only read English, just assume that these ideas are coming directly from American conservatives when in many cases they do not.
So if you're hyper-online and reading English language twitter, you're then inevitably going to see any conservative impulse in an English language country as being an import from whatever is the perceived most conservative English language country, even when it actually comes from either a common neoliberal impulse or (less commonly these days) from a throne-and-altar conservatism that is actually more of an import *to* the US than the other way around. When CPAC holds a conference in Budapest, it's not to spread American conservative ideas to Hungary.
I have a lot more sympathy for that point of view from the global periphery than I do from non-US countries in the metropolitan core. In general, I have some suspicion of any argument that does away with domestic political responsibility in order to say that "the US" or "the Russians" made domestic elites or a domestic electorate do something against their actual will. This is why I have a lot more sympathy for the view in countries where the US and other governments may indeed have enforced a political programme
A lot of the neoliberal playbook was popularised by Thatcher and not Reagan and in many other countries has been rolled-out by centre-right forces who *always* believed those things for reasons that had nothing to do with the US. My mental model is not so much that these things spread from the US but that with fall of the Soviet Union, there was no longer a need for the bourgeoisie in many countries to make tactical and limited concessions to workers at all. Not that the USSR was a good thing but its existence was a counter-point to the naturalisation of liberal capitalism. Now that it has failed and been replaced by a state that no longer even pretends that it believes in common ownership, we are in that end-of-history place where Tony Blair could say that being against globalisation was like being against the tides.
posted by atrazine at 8:57 AM on July 25, 2022 [8 favorites]
I want to respond directly to this statement: I also think that it is widely exaggerated the degree to which American conservative ideas are directly exported.
For me, even if i might be communicating it not as clearly, I've been very clear whatever the quality of political thought we get it's very much a function of power dynamics. We get a lot of reproductive health development support? Yes, as well as anti-abortion messaging though previously limited only thru non-govt actors. (Quick ETA: I'm talking about local NGOs having to turn down american govt aid now because of that anti-abortion clause despite their own uncertain funding landscape).
In addition, in my daily life, in a country with a significant number of English speakers but also whose national language and common languages are not English, i cannot imagine a more direct example of american conservative thought when I grew up reading Rush Limbaugh in the biggest and oldest national broadsheet and when I go grocery shopping at one of the largest chains, it's to a looping background of James Dobson talks. I cannot also imagine a more direct example of the scant times i get handed a Jack Chick tract by newly christened evangelicals who thought they were doing something because, due to that conservatism i mentioned, preaching non-islamic matters to Muslims are literally illegal here (and that's bad!). In the meantime the two factions are operating hand-in-hand regressing the hard won gains in the 90s mainly with regards to women's rights and the ability for queer people to be present in public.
Southeast Asia is full of proxy action in the Cold War just like Eastern Europe. It's just China took a while to economically rouse. And in the meantime during the Konfrontasi with (then left) Indonesia, one of the key reasons the new Malaysian federation survived was thru military support coming from the US and the white British Commonwealth countries. We're talking claims of Spitfires waiting to take off from NZ and Australia reported in public sort of narrative. My side of the family that was from the non-officially British colony side (long story) remembered being taught English by young Peace Corps kids. The first technical institution set up for the local native ethnicities was styled after MIT. specific academic chairs to study us got set up in Hawaii and strangely the Midwest. How much more direct norming of political thought do you need?
The Cold War ending didn't end this relationship, but it sure changed the tenor of political thought that i can see influencing our politicians, to the point that even when we did manage to change our govt for the first time since independence the opposition folks were still mainly centre-right folks because they received support from places like IRI (the repub overseas arm) or the NDI (the Dems).
posted by cendawanita at 10:58 AM on July 25, 2022 [4 favorites]
For me, even if i might be communicating it not as clearly, I've been very clear whatever the quality of political thought we get it's very much a function of power dynamics. We get a lot of reproductive health development support? Yes, as well as anti-abortion messaging though previously limited only thru non-govt actors. (Quick ETA: I'm talking about local NGOs having to turn down american govt aid now because of that anti-abortion clause despite their own uncertain funding landscape).
In addition, in my daily life, in a country with a significant number of English speakers but also whose national language and common languages are not English, i cannot imagine a more direct example of american conservative thought when I grew up reading Rush Limbaugh in the biggest and oldest national broadsheet and when I go grocery shopping at one of the largest chains, it's to a looping background of James Dobson talks. I cannot also imagine a more direct example of the scant times i get handed a Jack Chick tract by newly christened evangelicals who thought they were doing something because, due to that conservatism i mentioned, preaching non-islamic matters to Muslims are literally illegal here (and that's bad!). In the meantime the two factions are operating hand-in-hand regressing the hard won gains in the 90s mainly with regards to women's rights and the ability for queer people to be present in public.
Southeast Asia is full of proxy action in the Cold War just like Eastern Europe. It's just China took a while to economically rouse. And in the meantime during the Konfrontasi with (then left) Indonesia, one of the key reasons the new Malaysian federation survived was thru military support coming from the US and the white British Commonwealth countries. We're talking claims of Spitfires waiting to take off from NZ and Australia reported in public sort of narrative. My side of the family that was from the non-officially British colony side (long story) remembered being taught English by young Peace Corps kids. The first technical institution set up for the local native ethnicities was styled after MIT. specific academic chairs to study us got set up in Hawaii and strangely the Midwest. How much more direct norming of political thought do you need?
The Cold War ending didn't end this relationship, but it sure changed the tenor of political thought that i can see influencing our politicians, to the point that even when we did manage to change our govt for the first time since independence the opposition folks were still mainly centre-right folks because they received support from places like IRI (the repub overseas arm) or the NDI (the Dems).
posted by cendawanita at 10:58 AM on July 25, 2022 [4 favorites]
I think this Metafilter thread is an example of how a misleading pull-quote can confuse the discussion. The New York Times op-ed piece that's linked in this FPP is behind a paywall, so a lot of non-subscribers can't read it, but the quote gives the impression that it's about Republican party demographics and the spread of conservative politics.
It's not, though! The article is mostly about the "great resignation," "lying flat" and other trends among young people who are refusing to take part in busywork to be more productive in their jobs for no good reason. Workers who are not lazy, but who have lost faith that the work they're being asked to do is producing a better world for everyone who isn't already rich. The goal of "increasing efficiency" turns out to mean squeezing out all the ways that us average everyday schmoes (just muddling through the day doing an OK job, with no interest in being "entrepreneurs") could receive a comfortable life from our employment, well paid enough to own a house and send kids to college without debts.
And it has another great pull quote which I love, though it's also misleading in isolation: "My generation, X, was the first postwar cohort to be downwardly mobile, but millennials were the first to know it going in."
Thanks for the FPP, mecran01; this article was really thoughtful and satisfying to read.
posted by Harvey Kilobit at 3:05 PM on July 25, 2022 [6 favorites]
It's not, though! The article is mostly about the "great resignation," "lying flat" and other trends among young people who are refusing to take part in busywork to be more productive in their jobs for no good reason. Workers who are not lazy, but who have lost faith that the work they're being asked to do is producing a better world for everyone who isn't already rich. The goal of "increasing efficiency" turns out to mean squeezing out all the ways that us average everyday schmoes (just muddling through the day doing an OK job, with no interest in being "entrepreneurs") could receive a comfortable life from our employment, well paid enough to own a house and send kids to college without debts.
And it has another great pull quote which I love, though it's also misleading in isolation: "My generation, X, was the first postwar cohort to be downwardly mobile, but millennials were the first to know it going in."
Thanks for the FPP, mecran01; this article was really thoughtful and satisfying to read.
posted by Harvey Kilobit at 3:05 PM on July 25, 2022 [6 favorites]
The article is mostly about the "great resignation," "lying flat" and other trends among young people who are refusing to take part in busywork to be more productive in their jobs for no good reason.
There is no 'great resignation', there is a serious employment crisis (too many people employed) such that The Fed is raising rates so that people get fired. The unemployment rate is 3.6%, which is so low the labor participation rate, which is the number of people unemployed and not looking for jobs, is creeping back up. It fell 2% at the beginning of COVID, and has steadily fallen as the US population has aged. It maxed out all time in the early 2000s at 66%, and now is at 62%.
And I'm sorry, but the housing and jobs crisis is not caused by some generic 'capitalism' boogeyman but by boomers, Gen X and now millenials, with boomers deserving the least amount of ire here because they built a normal amount of housing for themselves. Gen-X has done nothing but pull up the ladder. But looking in the mirror and saying "you did it to yourself- think about someone else for a full 5 minutes" is a lot harder to deal with than blaming something nefarious like 'capitalism'. It wasn't me, it was 'capitalism'.
In another thread about San Diego (a navy border town) someone suggested that people from the east move back. LOL if you think 'conservatism' is dying.
posted by The_Vegetables at 7:04 PM on July 25, 2022
There is no 'great resignation', there is a serious employment crisis (too many people employed) such that The Fed is raising rates so that people get fired. The unemployment rate is 3.6%, which is so low the labor participation rate, which is the number of people unemployed and not looking for jobs, is creeping back up. It fell 2% at the beginning of COVID, and has steadily fallen as the US population has aged. It maxed out all time in the early 2000s at 66%, and now is at 62%.
And I'm sorry, but the housing and jobs crisis is not caused by some generic 'capitalism' boogeyman but by boomers, Gen X and now millenials, with boomers deserving the least amount of ire here because they built a normal amount of housing for themselves. Gen-X has done nothing but pull up the ladder. But looking in the mirror and saying "you did it to yourself- think about someone else for a full 5 minutes" is a lot harder to deal with than blaming something nefarious like 'capitalism'. It wasn't me, it was 'capitalism'.
In another thread about San Diego (a navy border town) someone suggested that people from the east move back. LOL if you think 'conservatism' is dying.
posted by The_Vegetables at 7:04 PM on July 25, 2022
there is a serious employment crisis (too many people employed)
Wut? I mean, in an ideal world such as luxury space communism, employment wouldn't be more-or-less necessary for survival, let alone a reasonable standard of comfort or flourishing. But in our current world, "too many people employed" is a rather callous sentiment.
There is a relationship between the unemployment rate - which does not count people who are most definitely not getting along okay without a job but who don't meet the somewhat arbitrary and also ableist "looking for work" standards - and the number of people over 16 who are not employed but also not "unemployed" in that narrow sense. To wit, there is a total number of people who don't have jobs. They are either technically unemployed (meet the "looking for work" criteria), or they aren't. Note that the labor force participation rate "is an estimate of an economy’s active workforce. The formula is the number of people ages 16 and older who are employed or actively seeking employment, divided by the total non-institutionalized, civilian working-age population." So that's technically everyone over 16 who isn't in latter category of neither having nor "looking for" a job.
Labor force participation rate going down means that more people are entering the not employed and not looking category, which means more retirements, more long term disability, more stay-at-home parents, more people moving to working under the table or in informal/illegal economies, or more people "giving up" on finding employment (again, for narrow definition of "looking for work" used for such data collection). Labor force participation rate going up means people retiring later or retirees dying, parents returning to the workforce or fewer new parents, fewer people with long-term disabilities (eg. if something like a pandemic wipes out a chunk of more vulnerable people who weren't in the official labor force previously), informal or illegal economies less stable or lucrative or facing a downturn (eg. decriminalization of a previously illegal occupation, like pot industry jobs or sex work, so that employees in that industry now get counted in the official labor force data), or people more hopeful of the formal "looking for work" methods being useful for helping them find employment.
Various social factors can definitely shift people back and forth between unemployed but counted as part of the labor force versus not employed and not considered "looking for work". Mostly having more people in the unemployed but labor force side of things is good, except for the retirement component or the unusual but relevant during a pandemic possibility of the ratio changing because those not in the official labor force are dying at higher rates. Under ordinary circumstances, however, if labor force participation rates stay constant, then an increase in unemployment has to be matched by a decrease in the number of people not employed but not in the labor force, and vice versa. It would surprise me that there would be an inverse correlation between unemployment and labor force participation rate, though - I would have expected those two to be relatively uncorrelated, with the connections being more complex and indirect? Was the argument supposed to be that given low unemployment rates, an increase in labor force participation rate would likely mean more people outside of the labor force are able to find work and re-enter the labor force, or find hope or have obstacles removed to them at least entering the ranks of the officially unemployed (but looking)? That seems like it would be a positive thing, not a negative "employment crisis"?
posted by eviemath at 8:17 PM on July 25, 2022 [2 favorites]
Wut? I mean, in an ideal world such as luxury space communism, employment wouldn't be more-or-less necessary for survival, let alone a reasonable standard of comfort or flourishing. But in our current world, "too many people employed" is a rather callous sentiment.
There is a relationship between the unemployment rate - which does not count people who are most definitely not getting along okay without a job but who don't meet the somewhat arbitrary and also ableist "looking for work" standards - and the number of people over 16 who are not employed but also not "unemployed" in that narrow sense. To wit, there is a total number of people who don't have jobs. They are either technically unemployed (meet the "looking for work" criteria), or they aren't. Note that the labor force participation rate "is an estimate of an economy’s active workforce. The formula is the number of people ages 16 and older who are employed or actively seeking employment, divided by the total non-institutionalized, civilian working-age population." So that's technically everyone over 16 who isn't in latter category of neither having nor "looking for" a job.
Labor force participation rate going down means that more people are entering the not employed and not looking category, which means more retirements, more long term disability, more stay-at-home parents, more people moving to working under the table or in informal/illegal economies, or more people "giving up" on finding employment (again, for narrow definition of "looking for work" used for such data collection). Labor force participation rate going up means people retiring later or retirees dying, parents returning to the workforce or fewer new parents, fewer people with long-term disabilities (eg. if something like a pandemic wipes out a chunk of more vulnerable people who weren't in the official labor force previously), informal or illegal economies less stable or lucrative or facing a downturn (eg. decriminalization of a previously illegal occupation, like pot industry jobs or sex work, so that employees in that industry now get counted in the official labor force data), or people more hopeful of the formal "looking for work" methods being useful for helping them find employment.
Various social factors can definitely shift people back and forth between unemployed but counted as part of the labor force versus not employed and not considered "looking for work". Mostly having more people in the unemployed but labor force side of things is good, except for the retirement component or the unusual but relevant during a pandemic possibility of the ratio changing because those not in the official labor force are dying at higher rates. Under ordinary circumstances, however, if labor force participation rates stay constant, then an increase in unemployment has to be matched by a decrease in the number of people not employed but not in the labor force, and vice versa. It would surprise me that there would be an inverse correlation between unemployment and labor force participation rate, though - I would have expected those two to be relatively uncorrelated, with the connections being more complex and indirect? Was the argument supposed to be that given low unemployment rates, an increase in labor force participation rate would likely mean more people outside of the labor force are able to find work and re-enter the labor force, or find hope or have obstacles removed to them at least entering the ranks of the officially unemployed (but looking)? That seems like it would be a positive thing, not a negative "employment crisis"?
posted by eviemath at 8:17 PM on July 25, 2022 [2 favorites]
And I'm sorry, but the housing and jobs crisis is not caused by some generic 'capitalism' boogeyman but by boomers, Gen X and now millenials, with boomers deserving the least amount of ire here because they built a normal amount of housing for themselves. Gen-X has done nothing but pull up the ladder.
Capitalism is the system which knits generations together, however I'm curious to learn more about how various generations, with nothing in common other than birth years, can build a normal amount of housing for themselves. What is the mechanism for a generation to build housing, independent of the strictures created by the multigenerational society we find ourselves in?
posted by chaz at 12:57 AM on July 26, 2022 [10 favorites]
Capitalism is the system which knits generations together, however I'm curious to learn more about how various generations, with nothing in common other than birth years, can build a normal amount of housing for themselves. What is the mechanism for a generation to build housing, independent of the strictures created by the multigenerational society we find ourselves in?
posted by chaz at 12:57 AM on July 26, 2022 [10 favorites]
Yeah what a weirdly reductive and divisive take. "It's not our economic system see, it's the collective planning decisions of these completely arbitrary age cohorts that have next to nothing to do with the actual structures of power in our society."
Completely discounting how our society's changing values in terms of racial segregation and environmental sustainability have quickly eviscerated demand for far-flung suburban housing stock which was propped almost entirely by systemic discrimination. Having very little to do with these ageist cohorts apart from the general trend of apparent social progress across all ages.
(This has all the drama potential of the slapfight about whether cannabis legalization contributed to the Denver housing crisis that I got caught up in on that OTHER forum.)
posted by viborg at 5:06 AM on July 26, 2022 [2 favorites]
Completely discounting how our society's changing values in terms of racial segregation and environmental sustainability have quickly eviscerated demand for far-flung suburban housing stock which was propped almost entirely by systemic discrimination. Having very little to do with these ageist cohorts apart from the general trend of apparent social progress across all ages.
(This has all the drama potential of the slapfight about whether cannabis legalization contributed to the Denver housing crisis that I got caught up in on that OTHER forum.)
posted by viborg at 5:06 AM on July 26, 2022 [2 favorites]
Techbro neoliberalism's "move fast and break things" ethos also seems significant.
posted by viborg at 5:09 AM on July 26, 2022
posted by viborg at 5:09 AM on July 26, 2022
There’s also the part where Gen-X (in the average, overall demographic sense) was the first generation (in a long time, at least) to have lower wealth than their predecessors, with Millenials and subsequent generations being (on average) increasingly worse off. Blaming Gen-Xers - or anyone experiencing housing insecurity, to take a more useful or actually relevant demographic approach - for not building more housing while ignoring the “with what capital?” question is rather a large oversight.
posted by eviemath at 7:16 AM on July 26, 2022 [5 favorites]
posted by eviemath at 7:16 AM on July 26, 2022 [5 favorites]
As a Gen-Xer with no connections to the RE industry, I'm curious as to how I could have built more housing for my generation.
posted by borges at 9:35 AM on July 26, 2022 [4 favorites]
posted by borges at 9:35 AM on July 26, 2022 [4 favorites]
As a Gen-Xer with no connections to the RE industry, I'm curious as to how I could have built more housing for my generation.
Not only this but people forget just how truly small Gen X was in terms of demographics. Gen X peaked at just over 65 million people and is going down from there. Baby Boomers peaked at 78.8 million people. There are still 65 million Boomers alive. In 2022. They won't be a bigger cohort than the Boomers until 2028. For most of their political lives Gen X have been outvoted by their selfish parents at every turn who pulled the ladder up from underneath them and destroyed their children's futures. Only a couple of years ago did Millennials overtake Boomers in population and the voting bloc is still establishing itself while Boomers show up come hell or high water to vote their interests so they still wield greatly outsized political influence.
Nope. Sorry. Gen X doesn't get the blame for anything here. They weren't old enough to vote for Reagan which the Baby Boomers did in spades. That's what pretty much fucked the country. The Reagan administration is where every major indicator of middle class prosperity goes off the rails and the US descends into middle class lifestyle only attainable to two middle class incomes and a pile of debt. They got entirely fucked by politics.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 11:51 AM on July 26, 2022 [19 favorites]
Not only this but people forget just how truly small Gen X was in terms of demographics. Gen X peaked at just over 65 million people and is going down from there. Baby Boomers peaked at 78.8 million people. There are still 65 million Boomers alive. In 2022. They won't be a bigger cohort than the Boomers until 2028. For most of their political lives Gen X have been outvoted by their selfish parents at every turn who pulled the ladder up from underneath them and destroyed their children's futures. Only a couple of years ago did Millennials overtake Boomers in population and the voting bloc is still establishing itself while Boomers show up come hell or high water to vote their interests so they still wield greatly outsized political influence.
Nope. Sorry. Gen X doesn't get the blame for anything here. They weren't old enough to vote for Reagan which the Baby Boomers did in spades. That's what pretty much fucked the country. The Reagan administration is where every major indicator of middle class prosperity goes off the rails and the US descends into middle class lifestyle only attainable to two middle class incomes and a pile of debt. They got entirely fucked by politics.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 11:51 AM on July 26, 2022 [19 favorites]
I think there is probably also something to be said for how the "Silent Generation" (b. 1928-1945) accumulated a fair degree of what wealth there was that went around their ranks via inheritance, as older generations tended to pass away in their own homes or in the care of their family members. Even if we don't think of "received a modest amount of money when Old Uncle Bill died" as passing on "wealth," it was a financial factor for many in that generation.
Years later, the push for offloading relatives into assisted living facilities--whether you consider that a victory for elder care, another scam of capitalism, or yet another selfish failing of Boomers--causes large chunks of generational wealth to evaporate before it can be passed down to later generations.
Like virtually every other economic development of the last 40-50 years, it has turned out to fuck GenXers and Millennials hard.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 12:12 PM on July 26, 2022 [11 favorites]
Years later, the push for offloading relatives into assisted living facilities--whether you consider that a victory for elder care, another scam of capitalism, or yet another selfish failing of Boomers--causes large chunks of generational wealth to evaporate before it can be passed down to later generations.
Like virtually every other economic development of the last 40-50 years, it has turned out to fuck GenXers and Millennials hard.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 12:12 PM on July 26, 2022 [11 favorites]
« Older Just what the neighborhood needed | Another blow for the TED talk industrial complex Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Oyéah at 5:34 PM on July 24, 2022 [14 favorites]