Predistribution vs redistribution
November 9, 2024 6:40 AM Subscribe
“Compensate the Losers?” Economic Policy and Partisan Realignment in the US by Ilyana Kuziemko, Nicolas Longuet-Marx, and Suresh Naidu (thread @ dead bird, graph)
We argue that the Democratic Party’s evolution on economic policy helps explain partisan realignment by education. We show that less-educated Americans differentially demand “predistribution” policies (e.g., a federal jobs guarantee, higher minimum wages, protectionism, and stronger unions), while more-educated Americans differentially favor redistribution (taxes and transfers). This educational gradient in policy preferences has been largely unchanged since the 1940s. We then show the Democrats’ supply of predistribution has declined since the 1970s. We tie this decline to the rise of a self-described “New Democrat” party faction who court more educated voters and are explicitly skeptical of predistribution.
..
In response to these within-party changes in power, less-educated Americans began to leave the Democratic Party in the 1970s, after decades of serving as the party’s base. Roughly half of the total shift can be explained by their changing views of the parties’ economic policies.
If not obvious, this discusses long-term political trends, not the recent ellections. In breif, Democats steadily reduced their support for unions & workers rights during the 70s, 80s, and 90s, which explains roughly half of the blue collar voter realignment.
We argue that the Democratic Party’s evolution on economic policy helps explain partisan realignment by education. We show that less-educated Americans differentially demand “predistribution” policies (e.g., a federal jobs guarantee, higher minimum wages, protectionism, and stronger unions), while more-educated Americans differentially favor redistribution (taxes and transfers). This educational gradient in policy preferences has been largely unchanged since the 1940s. We then show the Democrats’ supply of predistribution has declined since the 1970s. We tie this decline to the rise of a self-described “New Democrat” party faction who court more educated voters and are explicitly skeptical of predistribution.
..
In response to these within-party changes in power, less-educated Americans began to leave the Democratic Party in the 1970s, after decades of serving as the party’s base. Roughly half of the total shift can be explained by their changing views of the parties’ economic policies.
If not obvious, this discusses long-term political trends, not the recent ellections. In breif, Democats steadily reduced their support for unions & workers rights during the 70s, 80s, and 90s, which explains roughly half of the blue collar voter realignment.
I see the Democrats in the last four elections as targeting Americans who are mostly satisfied with the economic status quo and want a president and politics they feel they don’t have to keep an eye on.
And that’s also described the candidates, and as far as I can tell their friends and family and advisors, but fewer and fewer voters.
It’s telling that Harris’s main nod to healthcare reform was adding funding for elder care, because it’s easier for that crowd to think about their parents’ mortality than their own or that their own “good health insurance” might not cover them in their time of need.
posted by smelendez at 7:20 AM on November 9 [9 favorites]
And that’s also described the candidates, and as far as I can tell their friends and family and advisors, but fewer and fewer voters.
It’s telling that Harris’s main nod to healthcare reform was adding funding for elder care, because it’s easier for that crowd to think about their parents’ mortality than their own or that their own “good health insurance” might not cover them in their time of need.
posted by smelendez at 7:20 AM on November 9 [9 favorites]
Yes, Democrats have moved even futher recently, smelendez, but the paper only discusses up through 2000. I've many thoughts on this, but one brief remark..
At least the "safty net" component of redistributiomn helps risk takers who might become wealthy, but initially live somewhat precariously like startup employees. It'd never really clicked with me how radically this groups interests differ from regular employees locked into class strugle with large semi-stable employers, especially manufacturers. Of course free trade policies hurt both there.
I think efficacy and capture play an enormous role here too: Unions were an effective, if they either had government help ala Europe, or carried out the violence themselves, ala Jimmy Hoffa. This made them a target, so then Democrats abandonded them for people who pay more. Redistribution otoh can easily be captured by corporate interests, either directly ala BoA skimming welfcared, or indirectly ala rent inflation, so the deep pocket benefit.
posted by jeffburdges at 7:38 AM on November 9 [3 favorites]
At least the "safty net" component of redistributiomn helps risk takers who might become wealthy, but initially live somewhat precariously like startup employees. It'd never really clicked with me how radically this groups interests differ from regular employees locked into class strugle with large semi-stable employers, especially manufacturers. Of course free trade policies hurt both there.
I think efficacy and capture play an enormous role here too: Unions were an effective, if they either had government help ala Europe, or carried out the violence themselves, ala Jimmy Hoffa. This made them a target, so then Democrats abandonded them for people who pay more. Redistribution otoh can easily be captured by corporate interests, either directly ala BoA skimming welfcared, or indirectly ala rent inflation, so the deep pocket benefit.
posted by jeffburdges at 7:38 AM on November 9 [3 favorites]
I've said this before here, but Thomas Frank has been talking about this for decades now (as evidenced by the fact that he is now persona non grata in Your Librul Media). The Dems internalized his What's the Matter with Kansas thesis that the GOP cons its base by running on culture war issues but never delivering (no longer true since the Trumpers took over the party, btw), but they completely ignored the entire other half of the book that talks about how the only way they were able to get away with this is because the Clinton Democrats abandoned and actively alienated the working class, formerly their own voting base. When you're going to get fucked economically and policy-wise no matter which party you vote for, what else distinguishes the two besides the culture war nonsense?
I clearly remember a story Frank told while he was doing the book tour interview circuit (I don't remember now if this anecdote is actually in the book) relating how he was talking to a friend of his in Kansas, a blue-dog Democrat from a family who were solid Democrats since the New Deal, right after Clinton had signed NAFTA: his friend told him "Well, I guess I'm never voting Democrat again." Personally, I used to say "Bill Clinton was the best Republican president of the modern era." Then Obama came along...
posted by Pedantzilla at 8:05 AM on November 9 [10 favorites]
I clearly remember a story Frank told while he was doing the book tour interview circuit (I don't remember now if this anecdote is actually in the book) relating how he was talking to a friend of his in Kansas, a blue-dog Democrat from a family who were solid Democrats since the New Deal, right after Clinton had signed NAFTA: his friend told him "Well, I guess I'm never voting Democrat again." Personally, I used to say "Bill Clinton was the best Republican president of the modern era." Then Obama came along...
posted by Pedantzilla at 8:05 AM on November 9 [10 favorites]
and yet, locally Dems are the ones who raise minium wage while the Republicans fight it
and yet, economy does better under Dems, which, while not evenly distributed at all, is better than the alternative
and yet, national health care, even tho it needs improvement, came from the Dems (with a nod to Mister Mittens of Massachusetts )
and yet, anti union labor laws come from who now? did you say Republicans? correct!
yes they totally need to do better and drop the neoliberalism and bending the knee to Wall Street (looking at you Chuck D-$$), but ffs...
... it's almost as if, for a large part of the country, facts don't matter
posted by kokaku at 8:19 AM on November 9 [13 favorites]
and yet, economy does better under Dems, which, while not evenly distributed at all, is better than the alternative
and yet, national health care, even tho it needs improvement, came from the Dems (with a nod to Mister Mittens of Massachusetts )
and yet, anti union labor laws come from who now? did you say Republicans? correct!
yes they totally need to do better and drop the neoliberalism and bending the knee to Wall Street (looking at you Chuck D-$$), but ffs...
... it's almost as if, for a large part of the country, facts don't matter
posted by kokaku at 8:19 AM on November 9 [13 favorites]
“Facts don’t matter”
In the election thread, someone posted an article from The New Republic that blames this on Fox and the right wing media-sphere.
I have said this over and over on Metafilter, but Dems needed to pay more attention to Fox in the 90s before it became the behemoth it now is. Fox creates reality for maybe 50% of the country.
I have no doubt once Trump takes office suddenly we won’t hear about inflation anymore. If Fox tells its audience times are good, they are, regardless of actual reality. I don’t know how to fight that.
posted by wittgenstein at 8:39 AM on November 9 [17 favorites]
In the election thread, someone posted an article from The New Republic that blames this on Fox and the right wing media-sphere.
I have said this over and over on Metafilter, but Dems needed to pay more attention to Fox in the 90s before it became the behemoth it now is. Fox creates reality for maybe 50% of the country.
I have no doubt once Trump takes office suddenly we won’t hear about inflation anymore. If Fox tells its audience times are good, they are, regardless of actual reality. I don’t know how to fight that.
posted by wittgenstein at 8:39 AM on November 9 [17 favorites]
This is a very interesting paper- thank you for posting it!
posted by a faded photo of their beloved at 9:00 AM on November 9 [1 favorite]
posted by a faded photo of their beloved at 9:00 AM on November 9 [1 favorite]
So, progressives came off the high of winning WWII with a couple decades of success, but greedy opportunists gradually began to infiltrate and eat away at their integrity, and the civil cold war that they have just lost is just ganster capitalists crushing run of the mill corrupt capitalists.
I've said before, the outcome of that war and the last 70 years of relative freedom and peace was a fluke, a happy accident of the Democrats being in power, the Japanese jumping the gun, and two sketchy communist countries willing to lend a hand.
posted by CynicalKnight at 10:40 AM on November 9 [2 favorites]
I've said before, the outcome of that war and the last 70 years of relative freedom and peace was a fluke, a happy accident of the Democrats being in power, the Japanese jumping the gun, and two sketchy communist countries willing to lend a hand.
posted by CynicalKnight at 10:40 AM on November 9 [2 favorites]
ah, if only they learnred the branding lessons!
posted by AlbertCalavicci at 3:05 PM on November 9
posted by AlbertCalavicci at 3:05 PM on November 9
There is no conflict here with the Democrats both losing predistribution voters, while still being better for predistribution than Republicans, kokaku. These voters realize they're being fucked over by the system overall, but not exactly how, so Republicans can win them by promissing immigration realted bullshit, while the democrats propose nothing.
At this point, real progressives like Bernie cannot win because Americans have bought into the neoliberal bullshit economy and no longer understand unions, minimum wage, or protectionism. Just fyi, China has not forgotten the benefits of protectionism.
posted by jeffburdges at 4:38 PM on November 9 [1 favorite]
At this point, real progressives like Bernie cannot win because Americans have bought into the neoliberal bullshit economy and no longer understand unions, minimum wage, or protectionism. Just fyi, China has not forgotten the benefits of protectionism.
posted by jeffburdges at 4:38 PM on November 9 [1 favorite]
I mean, that's the rub isn't it? The average person wants things that can only be achieved by socialist policies, but they want them sold to them as rugged individualism without any hint of the 's' word.
posted by Zalzidrax at 5:10 PM on November 9 [6 favorites]
posted by Zalzidrax at 5:10 PM on November 9 [6 favorites]
As I understand it, WWI and WWII were only possible because of excess oil capacity, CynicalKnight. Also, communists, socialists, and progressives were all playing on easy mode, with plentiful oil improving the economy, but also the socialists and preogressives were only successful for so long because of the threat of communism.
We should map the graph tweet to the rate of increase of oil production: After the Iranian Oil Crisis, Democrats reduced predistribution from 1955 until 1967. Democrats readopted predistribution during the Middle East oil boom from 1967 until 1973. After the Arab oil crisis, Democrats again abandoned predistribution. We've pummped oil faster & faster but production has never increased like before 1973, meaning we'd less growing economy to share with workers.
I suppose the liberal/neoliberals won, both within the Democrats and elsewhere, because they could show more "prosperity" to those in power, where progressives could not do so. In reality, neoliberals achieved "prosperity" for upper classes by taking from the lower classes, since they could no longer just take from increasing oil production.
As for the future..
We'll hopefully discover that air travel cannot be maintained on renewables. Air travel becoming uneconomical hopefully destroys the multi-national corporations aka "mini-empires" (see Quantitative Dynamics of Human Empires by Cesare Marchetti and Jesse Ausubel). We expect climate change makes food & fertilizer export restrictions ubiquitous too. I'd expect all this reverses economic globalization, ending the neoliberals' party trick. Afaik protectionism was pretty common historically, so maybe it comes back, and maybe unions too. I donno..
posted by jeffburdges at 5:17 PM on November 9 [3 favorites]
We should map the graph tweet to the rate of increase of oil production: After the Iranian Oil Crisis, Democrats reduced predistribution from 1955 until 1967. Democrats readopted predistribution during the Middle East oil boom from 1967 until 1973. After the Arab oil crisis, Democrats again abandoned predistribution. We've pummped oil faster & faster but production has never increased like before 1973, meaning we'd less growing economy to share with workers.
I suppose the liberal/neoliberals won, both within the Democrats and elsewhere, because they could show more "prosperity" to those in power, where progressives could not do so. In reality, neoliberals achieved "prosperity" for upper classes by taking from the lower classes, since they could no longer just take from increasing oil production.
As for the future..
We'll hopefully discover that air travel cannot be maintained on renewables. Air travel becoming uneconomical hopefully destroys the multi-national corporations aka "mini-empires" (see Quantitative Dynamics of Human Empires by Cesare Marchetti and Jesse Ausubel). We expect climate change makes food & fertilizer export restrictions ubiquitous too. I'd expect all this reverses economic globalization, ending the neoliberals' party trick. Afaik protectionism was pretty common historically, so maybe it comes back, and maybe unions too. I donno..
posted by jeffburdges at 5:17 PM on November 9 [3 favorites]
> China has not forgotten the benefits of protectionism.
> I'd expect all this reverses economic globalization, ending the neoliberals' party trick. Afaik protectionism was pretty common historically, so maybe it comes back, and maybe unions too. I donno..
China has much to teach us. John Roberts does not.
posted by kliuless at 3:45 AM on November 10 [2 favorites]
> I'd expect all this reverses economic globalization, ending the neoliberals' party trick. Afaik protectionism was pretty common historically, so maybe it comes back, and maybe unions too. I donno..
China has much to teach us. John Roberts does not.
posted by kliuless at 3:45 AM on November 10 [2 favorites]
Democrats really dropped the ball after the pandemic. For one brief moment during a national emergency, predistribution came roaring back. We got direct payments including the child tax credit, rent assistance, food assistance, and a crapton of money that was pumped into local businesses.
And then they took it all back.
The pandemic was supposed to be our Great Depression. It was supposed to be our crisis where we once again learned the importance of a social safety net through our collective hardship. It was supposed to be a reset ala the New Deal, where Government had once again saved Capitalism for the Capitalists and in return we would get some things. Instead, as soon as it was convenient, those fuckers clawed it all back from us.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 6:42 AM on November 10 [10 favorites]
And then they took it all back.
The pandemic was supposed to be our Great Depression. It was supposed to be our crisis where we once again learned the importance of a social safety net through our collective hardship. It was supposed to be a reset ala the New Deal, where Government had once again saved Capitalism for the Capitalists and in return we would get some things. Instead, as soon as it was convenient, those fuckers clawed it all back from us.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 6:42 AM on November 10 [10 favorites]
All those are redistribution not predistribution, because all those redistribute tax money, instead of advantaging workers in class conflict.
Afaik, predistribution costs the government little or nothing financially. I'd think even a federal jobs guarantee hires semi-desperate people, which profits the government relative to hiring contractors, who'd overcharge and then exploit the same people or immigrants even worse.
Neoliberal economists would claim predistributive measures lower tax revenue. I suppose predistributive measures do slow down the economy, and even reduce compeditiveness, but there is a wider picture beyond GDP and how much stuff you can buy.
I would never claim the pandemic recession could be solved using predistributive measures, although having some would've soffened the long-term damage. If you'd really high tariffs in advance, then you'd have fewer buisness travellers, fewer flights, and less covid arrivals, but that's another conversation.
Also thanks, you've nicely demonstrated how we're all so indoctrinated by neoliberalism that we cannot distinguish between redistribution and predistribution. I've exactly the same problem myself! lol
posted by jeffburdges at 1:07 PM on November 10 [2 favorites]
Afaik, predistribution costs the government little or nothing financially. I'd think even a federal jobs guarantee hires semi-desperate people, which profits the government relative to hiring contractors, who'd overcharge and then exploit the same people or immigrants even worse.
Neoliberal economists would claim predistributive measures lower tax revenue. I suppose predistributive measures do slow down the economy, and even reduce compeditiveness, but there is a wider picture beyond GDP and how much stuff you can buy.
I would never claim the pandemic recession could be solved using predistributive measures, although having some would've soffened the long-term damage. If you'd really high tariffs in advance, then you'd have fewer buisness travellers, fewer flights, and less covid arrivals, but that's another conversation.
Also thanks, you've nicely demonstrated how we're all so indoctrinated by neoliberalism that we cannot distinguish between redistribution and predistribution. I've exactly the same problem myself! lol
posted by jeffburdges at 1:07 PM on November 10 [2 favorites]
For one brief moment during a national emergency, predistribution came roaring back. We got direct payments including the child tax credit, rent assistance, food assistance, and a crapton of money that was pumped into local businesses.
And then they took it all back.
Point is that they didn't take it all back. All of that money still exists, as does the increased government debt that created it. Very wealthy families now have all of it to a very good first approximation, and they will resist giving it back until the pitchforks and torches start coming up their driveways on the regular and probably even then.
What they will use it for instead of giving it back is buying assets, thereby driving up asset prices and therefore rents, and thereby further impoverishing everybody who isn't them.
This was a deliberate shift on the part of the Democrats when they embraced the Chicago School of Economics.
The world needs yearly taxes payable on the assessed (not realized) value of assets. It needed them the instant the CSE got popular inside the technocracy, and it needs them much more urgently now.
Predistribution is all very well, but in a world wholly owned by the tiniest of tiny minorities to whom everybody else pays rent for every use of any part of it, it's not sustainable.
posted by flabdablet at 3:01 PM on November 15 [2 favorites]
And then they took it all back.
Point is that they didn't take it all back. All of that money still exists, as does the increased government debt that created it. Very wealthy families now have all of it to a very good first approximation, and they will resist giving it back until the pitchforks and torches start coming up their driveways on the regular and probably even then.
What they will use it for instead of giving it back is buying assets, thereby driving up asset prices and therefore rents, and thereby further impoverishing everybody who isn't them.
This was a deliberate shift on the part of the Democrats when they embraced the Chicago School of Economics.
The world needs yearly taxes payable on the assessed (not realized) value of assets. It needed them the instant the CSE got popular inside the technocracy, and it needs them much more urgently now.
Predistribution is all very well, but in a world wholly owned by the tiniest of tiny minorities to whom everybody else pays rent for every use of any part of it, it's not sustainable.
posted by flabdablet at 3:01 PM on November 15 [2 favorites]
« Older The Arctic Seed Vault Shows the Flawed Logic of... | Boss’s greed has G-O-T-T-O-G-O Newer »
This was a deliberate shift on the part of the Democrats when they embraced the Chicago School of Economics. Over this same time period, they began encouraging mergers and globalization (in other words, offshoring). Both parties have by and large become parties in thrall to the rich, a situation accelerated by the Citizens United decision.
posted by rednikki at 6:48 AM on November 9 [22 favorites]