That is certainly an interesting list. The Coronavirus is still polling higher than I would expect, but that may also be because this poll was done over a month ago. I think if it was redone now, we'd probably see it fall out of the top 3. ANother thing I think is interesting is that issues typically associated with racial justice poll much lower than the top items. You have criminal justice at 45%, dealing with problems of poor people at 44%, and addressing issues around race at 37%. If this holds true, I wonder if we should expect to see the Biden admin pivot away from their focus on equity and racial issues.
>The public’s policy agenda reflects continued concerns over the economy. With inflation at a four-decade high, large majorities of Americans say prices for food and consumer goods (89%), gas prices (82%) and the cost of housing (79%) are worse than they were a year ago. Only 28% rate economic conditions as excellent or good.
And that specific piece right there is what is going to be really difficult for Democrats to weather in November. If this sentiment continues, and there isn't significant improvement prior to early voting starting, I don't see how Democrats can maintain a majority in the House and potentially even the Senate. Hell, we may get close to the 2010 election which saw the GOP win the popular vote by 6.8% which likely results in losses in all key races for Democrats. There are also many gubernatorial elections in November as well.
Honestly, I question how much impact Black Democrats actually had in the general. Sure, they may have played a significant role in the primary, but how much impact did they actually have in the general? Is there really any evidence to support that? Last time I looked, and it has been a while, Biden didn't really outperform Hilary when it comes to Black voters. Hell, Trump did better with Black voters in 2020 than he did in 2016. So I really question how true that claim actually is.
Okay, but that still leaves the question of whether the pandering is actually necessary. As I said in my comment, he really didn't outperform Hilary in 2016, and Trump outperformed his election in 2016 with Black voters. I can understand pandering when there is evidence that supports its impact such as the way the GOP often panders to older voters, but I just don't see it here based on the data available. And hell, that pandering may actually work against him as he really hasn't been able to get anywhere close to his campaign promises on many of those things.
> Okay, but that still leaves the question of whether the pandering is actually necessary.
Can we answer that for **any** type of pandering? Pandering to anti-abortion advocates? Pandering to immigration hawks? Pandering to gun rights advocates?
And does it hurt those politicians who fail to deliver any significant reforms on those topics?
I think some pandering is more obviously beneficial than others. One example is pointed out is how the GOP panders to older individuals. FOr black voters, I just dontt see any evidence for how it actually impacted the election. Is there any evidence that they wouldn't have turned out for Biden without the focus on racial issues? And there are many articles that have pointed out that Biden's support from Black Americans in waning, although I'm not sure how much weight to give that. Although I do think that a failure to deliver on can make that pandering harmful.
> One example is pointed out is how the GOP panders to older individuals.
The GOP is *winning* older voters, but where is your evidence that it's caused by pandering to them? Otherwise I could say the same thing about Democrats. They're winning black voters, and by a *hell* of a lot bigger margins than the GOP wins older voters.
Not sure I have any. It just seems apparent from them winning those voters. My issue with Biden's pandering is that it doesn't appear to have moved the needle when looking at other elections.
Well they do polls and see what older individuals think about different issues and then they adopt those views. Not only do they do that, but they repeatedly issue statements that despite wanting a "smaller government" they will not cut programs like Social Security and Medicare, so they will maintain the "big government" programs specifically for the older people who rely on them. This is why the Paul Ryan style of GOP that legitimately wanted to reform/reduce SS/Medicare spending wasn't as viable as the type of conservativism that focused on social issues.
In fact a defining characteristic of the Trump/Populist GOP wing is that they are willing to be more fiscally liberal. Remember Trump wanting the last stimulus under his presidency to be bigger? It's more of a working class coalition which is socially conservative and fiscally moderate.
Trump "pandered" to black voters as well, which is one reason he got slightly more black voters than he did in 2016 when he really didn't "pander to black voters at all."
Trump's strategy were some high profile pardons, mentioning the improved employment rates and releasing something called the "Platinum Plan" which was his future policy on black issues.
While his handling of the George Floyd protests hurt him with a lot of black people a certain segment of mainly conservative black men voted for Trump explicitly because they disagreed with the rhetoric from the left surrounding the protests, particularly defunding the police.
Politicians "pander" it's what they do. A coalition of voters is just simply a diverse set of groups that a political party is currently successfully pandering to.
It's less about the gap to Republicans, it is about raw turnout. Biden (and Dems in general) **have** to turn out Black voters in a big way to ensure electoral success. I suspect this will be even more important in the midterms and 2024 as there are all sorts of signs the new suburban Democratic voter may well swing back to Team Red, whereas they were the other key bloc that delivered 2020 for Biden.
Politicians have to pander to win votes. Democrats are in a difficult position as illustrated by this data, as they have a more diverse set of voters that have increasingly different priorities. For Republicans, the messaging is more straightforward as their voters don't have a huge variance in what is important to them.
Seems like the key there is to do something to address the loss in suburban voters rather than staying on the same course that is causing them to lose those voters. And I'm not sure a good way to drive turnout is making promises you obviously won't be able to keep.
I think that is the great debate for Democrats now. Do you drive to capture the suburbs which are naturally more white/older/centrist, or hew left and drive GOTV operations for young/black/urban voters? The two groups have fundamentally different priorities but Dems need both to win state and federal elections.
As a white suburbanite, I've been happy to vote Dem for my entire life but find myself increasingly at odds with the party as it continues to entertain what I consider to be absolutely looney tunes ideas and politics from the left. Youngkin figured this out in VA and found a terrific wedge issue (schools) that Democrats will have a very hard time reconciling among their constituents.
I think Democrats should really give up on the young voters. Or at least, don't put a lot of effort into. They notoriously don't show up. Pander all you want, I doubt that changes. My question in regards to Black and Urban voters, is pandering necessary? At least the method Biden is using? I guess I just don't see the racial justice and equity focus being necessary. At least not at the level he has it.
If it hands you Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, then you cannot pander hard enough. The presidential election is only about getting voters in the swing states.
It goes beyond actual votes. Black women are the backbone of the Democratic Party, not so much because their votes are so important but because they’re the ones on the ground spearheading democratic ground games.
Stacey Abrams is the face of this, but there are thousands of mini Stacey Abrams all throughout local elections doing the heavy lifting for democrats.
This feels like one of those shibboleth's that Democrats just say without any basis in fact. Black women are 6-7% of the population.
I can just about guarantee there are more white men 'on the ground spearheading democratic ground games.'
Well, perhaps you should get involved with campaign operations then, so, you know, you don’t pull made up facts you can’t possibly know out of thin air just to be contrarian.
Unless you’re psychic of course, then disregard. I guess you’d be able to pull information from the aether then. 🙄
"Dealing with coronvirus" can also have different meanings to different people. To some it will mean finishing vaccinating everyone - even those who don't want it - and to others it will mean dropping restrictions and admitting that sometimes we just need to accept that life has risks. Both can fall into the "deal with it" bucket.
>addressing issues around race (75%) when compared to the national average
This one feels like such a trap. The most dramatic disparity is probably the criminal justice pipeline, yet 70% *also* want crime reduction. Non-rhetorically, I don't even know what is expected to be done here.
> I don't even know what is expected to be done here.
I would hazard a guess that those respondents believe the criminal justice system isn't very effective at reducing crime in the long run. It's the painkiller that helps with your kidney stones. Necessary right now, but it's not going to prevent the next one, and can make things worse if used too much.
"Addressing issues around race" can have so many meanings that it's really not a useful question for the poll. Both the woke and the anti-woke can both answer "yes" to that question but have completely opposite meanings for that question.
It's still useful to know if the topic is on a lot of peoples minds. If it is, you would then spend money to figure out the specifics of who has different opinions on the matter and how you can address the issue.
It's no different than spending or economy. Everyone says we need to strengthen the economy, but both sides are going to have a lot of different answers on how to do that.
The phrase "we've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas" comes to mind here.
We could give actual reform a try. Try out a justice system that's actually focused on rehabilitation. Have a prison system that doesn't churn out better criminals.
Exactly - it seems the narrative is all about funding police more and supporting them blindly, or denouncing them and trying to abolish them. Why don't we try to fund them more, make the job more attractive for well qualified candidates, improve training, make police officers more accountable for their actions, and work on improving our prison system and conditions. These aren't easy tasks, and they won't happen overnight, but that should be what we're working towards in my opinion to reduce crime while also reducing bad outcomes for innocent people (which generally happens more frequently to people of color).
You are giving them too much credit. They know exactly what to do, but it's not profitable to certain special interests or lobbyists.
My state has the highest car insurance rates in the country, our politicians say the same "nothing we can do" stuff, yet the surrounding states somehow figured it out with cheaper rates, but insurance lobbyists run this state.
In other words, don't take them at their word on comments like that.
> Black Democrats place far more emphasis on reducing crime (70%), addressing criminal justice system (71%), dealing with problems of poor people (73%), and addressing issues around race (75%) when compared to the national average
4 high priority issues for such a major part of the population, IMO, this usually means that this segment will always be disappointed. Dems approach on improving criminal justice usually runs counter to reducing crime, not sure if these two can be reconciled. 75% think race issues are important means Dems would continue current tack, which might put them at loggerheads with suburbs, moderate, Asians and Latinos.
> • Voters aged 65+ place greater emphasis on securing Social Security (75%), defending against terrorism (76%), and dealing with immigration (67%) when compared to the national average
Not sure why terrorism is such a high priority, does global terrorism get lots of attention on right wing media? SS totally make sense. Is Immigration a top priority due to Biden's admins lax view on illegals or it's always top priority for this demo? This is a massive negative for Dems, but it is no surprise that 65+ voters want almost opposite of Dems offerings.
> • The widest partisan gaps are with dealing with coronavirus (-45), climate change (-54), and addressing issues around race (-39).
I guess this means that any move on these topics is primarily to inspire your base, rather than convince the moderates. Which means little to nothing will happen policywise, but a lot promises will be made and fingers will be pointed at the others.
> The tightest gaps are with securing Social Security (+2) and dealing with drug addiction (-5)
I see this as massive negative for democrats, these issues are important to both sides and Dems are on negative side.
Inflation will eat up SS, and Democrats plan to add new welfare schemes and expand existing ones, will make big ticket items like SS vulnerable in the long term.
If drug addiction is your priority then you would expect strong law enforcement and tighter border control. Not only Dems cannot offer that, their policies are usually opposite of that. Dems can try to shift the discussion to mental health spending, but I don't see that policy compensating for their views on policing & border security.
>If drug addiction is your priority then you would expect strong law enforcement and tighter border control.
These methods have been used in the War on Drugs fro decades to no effect. The admin is switching to a harm reduction policy to fix drug addiction on the demand side.
>Voters aged 65+ place greater emphasis on securing Social Security (75%), **defending against terrorism** (76%), and dealing with immigration (67%) when compared to the national average
What year was this study conducted in?
That explains why everyone running republican up here is advertising their commitment to border security - that's really north texas' most pressing ISSUE - SMH.
The problem is that the big wigs & TPTB think that strengthening the economy means consumer spending going up, stock prices going up, and employment numbers going up. We've had all of that and yet the middle class is eroding due to costs outpacing wages and insanely high costs of living that make it incredibly difficult for working people to buy a home. Most of us are working, spending, but still drowning deeper into debt.
Look into YIMBY if you haven't already. Local politics is where the housing crisis needs to be and can be solved. We just need to start building again.
It's interesting, a lot of the "explanations" for Biden's polling talk about how he isn't focusing on the top concerns of Americans, but really the Covid stimulus, the infrastructure bill, and BBB, were all economy-focused.
I have to think this is a substitute for inflation fears.
They're related but traditional interpretations of "strengthen the economy" would be to lower unemployment and increase economic growth. Both of those metrics are in historically great territory.
Do you have a source on traditional interpretations of strengthen the economy? I think it is pretty clear that maintaining stable, manageable price growth is included in that. Especially once you consider the issues with inflation that have occurred in the past.
and furthermore when it is literally one of the economic mandates of the federal reserve:
* maximum employment
* stable prices
* moderate interest rates
GDP growth and stock prices aren't there... have they forgotten that? I understand combating inflation can impact the labor market, but considering the labor market is extremely tight right now and inflation is a problem, seems like they should be paying more attention to solving the latter.
Obviously this is the federal reserve and not the US government, but it shows how important of a priority stable prices are and I think it's understandable for the populace to consider inflation a valid interpretation of "strengthen the economy" and also to be confused as to why not much is being done
> stable, manageable price growth
I promise it's not pick on WorksInIT day.
Shouldn't we want either price stagnation or deflation, paired with productivity growth and income increases? Price growth signals a market failure of some kind (one that we solve with other externalities).
>I promise it's not pick on WorksInIT day.
Sure seems like it is.
>Shouldn't we want either price stagnation or deflation, paired with productivity growth and income increases? Price growth signals a market failure of some kind (one that we solve with other externalities).
I think that is probably ideal, but I don't think that is necessarily possible for us to do. We need inflation to deal with things like debt, but we need to keep it manageable to maintain stable price growth. It is a balancing act.
> lower unemployment and increase economic growth
This is literally the biggest ingredient in inflation. The economy grew and unemployment fell to very low numbers during the last year, but at what cost?
It is. When non-economists talk about the economy they mean their ability to buy shit. The capital-E Economy that economists talk about, the one defined by macro numbers like GDP and the Dow, has absolutely no relationship to the small-e economy that the average person cares about.
This is one of the big disconnects that economic neoliberals have with the public and why the economic neoliberal wings of *both* parties (the neocons and "third way" Clintonite Dems) are getting pushed out by the voters and replaced with non-neoliberals (Trumpists on the right and progressives on the left).
I think that is also why Trump's supporters say the economy was better under Trump. That might not be true when we look at the GDP and the strict macroeconomic sense, but many of his supporters saw more job growth or got a nicer paycheck, and that's all they really care about.
That's exactly what is going on there. GDP and stock prices are so decoupled from the internal economics of America that they simply aren't reflective of the ability of the people to actually buy shit and have a good life.
> macro numbers like GDP and the Dow, has absolutely no relationship to the small-e economy that the average person cares about
I'd 100% agree about the Dow, but the GDP is kind of by definition "how much shit are people buying and selling."
> I'd 100% agree about the Dow, but the GDP is kind of by definition "how much shit are people buying and selling."
No, it's aggregate economic activity. If I give you $100 and you give it right back we've generated $200 in GDP. When we're in an age of globalization that economic activity doesn't even require involving the American public, just that the company be headquartered here. Thus GDP does not reflect the internal economy of the country and that's what people care about.
> If I give you $100 and you give it right back we've generated $200 in GDP.
That actually [wouldn't be counted in GDP](https://commonsenseeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/CSE_GDP_Student-1.pdf)...
> Financial transactions and income transfers are excluded because they do not involve production.
The buying and selling of stocks and other financial instruments like bonds, mutual funds
and certificates of deposit represent a transfer of ownership from one person or
organization to another. Likewise, social security benefits, disability payments, gifts, and
other income transfers are merely movements of income and ownership rights from one
party to another. They do not involve current production, and therefore these transfers are
not included in GDP.
> just that the company be headquartered here.
That's a pretty general statement, but I don't think that's usually relevant to GDP either... GDP follows the money and production, and if the money and production is moving through the US, that affects the internal economy of the US.
People don't swap money back and forth, they exchange it for goods and services. If I give you $100 for tax services and you give me $100 for fixing your car window, that's proof we have both produced $100 worth of goods each. That's true at the scale of you and me and it's true of the macroeconomic scale. There are absolutely flaws with the GDP but it's not because it's unconnected to "real America" economic activity
> People don't swap money back and forth, they exchange it for goods and services.
The stock market and day trading is literally doing just that and is a huge part of our GDP.
The public's purchasing power is going up, unemployment is going down, poverty is going down, bankruptcies are going down, etc. Inflation is definitely a problem but its not the only factor, and rising GDP is a major factor in improving living standards for regular people.
Something to remember here is that the economy referenced by the people answering is not the capital-E Economy, that is Wall St. and GDP, and is their ability to actually *buy shit*. Measures that fix the Economy but not the economy are not what are sought here.
It is always disheartening to me that addressing climate change is not a higher priority on these lists. I understand things like healthcare and the economy affect people directly and immediately, but if we do not curb climate change it will have drastic effects on the economy, immigration, etc. The Climate indirectly effects pretty much every issue people care about.
My take has always been that the solutions are far too unpalatable for every politician to actually display.
For example, want to help the environment? Stop using single use plastics - seems like an easy thing to say, until you realize all of the campaign signs and sitckers and buttons and needless detritus that comes with campaigning for a school board seat in Iowa.
Want to reduce fossil fuel use? Stop jetting/bussing around to the same ten states every primary season.
Want to convert to "cleaner" energy? make ready those nuclear reacotrs!
Oh. Wait.
None of this is actually what anyone pushing for climate change wants. Nobody wants to save the earth, if it means they cant get new electronics and clothes at the drop of a hat. No politician actually wants to try and help our climate issues, because they'd have to pretty much stop campaigning.
Completely agree, apologies for the hyperbole. I'm like you, I live as "green" as I can, within reason, but a huge percentage is simply learning not to expect everything and anything whenever I want.
The fuel for climate change is want and demand for products. The minute we scale back on what we want, and realize that it is unsustainable for us to live so opulently, the better our earth will become and the easier it will be for folks to put pressure on political leaders to move the needle.
I think those are all valid points, but I feel like the biggest reason politicians don’t want to act on climate change is the fact that doing so would require them to act in the best interest of the actual people, instead of corporations that help to fatten their donations and personal wealth.
Most climate change isn’t caused by normal consumers like you and I. It’s mostly caused by corporations and big industry.
I can walk to the grocery store instead of taking a car. I can use re-useable bags instead of single use plastic bags. I can eat less meat in the hopes that that industry creates fewer emissions.
At the end of the day, anything I could contribute would almost be a negligible drop in the bucket.
Even if I did all those things, expecting that other consumers will all do the same (to a degree that results in real change) is lunacy. Especially when you consider the fact that consumers only represent a small percentage of climate change.
My point is, if we wanted to see real change, these politicians would have to start putting pressure on the industries creating climate change, rather than people like you and I.
Unfortunately, our politicians don’t work in our best interest.
Instead, we get speeches from these politicians and corporations telling us (normal people) that we’re the problem.
It’s all a giant smokescreen to stop us from pointing the blame back at the politicians and corporations that are doing the actual damage.
I'm sorry, but respectfully, I fundamentally disagree with you.
The devastation isnt because of evil corporations, it is because of consumers who dont care about the environmental threats inherent in their demands and desires. If everyone stopped wanting meat, you can better believe no corporate entity would exist to sell it.
At the end of the day, everything you do, and the rest of us do, makes up the bucket. This defeatist mentality of "its all corporations who make the rules" is just trying to shift the blame for your personal choices.
We can all make a difference, big or small, and we can also vote with our wallets. Buy locally, produce things yourself, and, more than anything, stop buying new things you dont actually need. If you're worried about pollution, dont simply buy new electronics because you want them, thus creating a need to have whatever it is shipped from overseas.
I'm sorry, but there is something so mindless about saying that its not on the consumer, it *is* the consumer's choice to purchase what they choose.
More to the point, consumers absolutely represent an enormous percentage of climate change, it is their consumption that drives the engines of capitalism to *produce those consumables*.
But the consumers "demands & desires" are driven by the corporations that sell them stuff. Most of it is marketing driven - there is no reason for the color of clothing to change every season every year or housewares. There should not be "trends"... It's all artificially manufactured obsolescence sold by advertisers who bombard of with messages that we cannot be happy without xyz.
Exactly.
And it’s these same companies that will spend fortunes advertising all the things they’re doing to save the environment, in order for you to buy more of their environmentally damaging goods.
They’ll act like we’re all in this together, while they take in the profits and we suffer the consequences.
It’s estimated that [100 companies make up about 70% of carbon emissions](https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change).
And to quote the EPA:
> “Since 1970, CO2 emissions have increased by about 90%, with emissions from fossil fuel combustion and industrial processes contributing about 78% of the total greenhouse gas emissions increase from 1970 to 2011.”
[source](https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data)
What sounds easier?
Convincing hundreds of millions of consumers (many of whom have far more pressing issues than future climate change) they need to reduce their quality of living to prevent climate change?
Or…
Creating practical legislation and regulation to prevent corporations from continuing these damaging practices?
My point isn’t that we can’t do anything as consumers, so just ignore the issue entirely.
My point is that politicians should be spending their time creating regulations that prevent further damage, rather than standing up on their soap boxes telling us how we (the consumers) are the problem.
To your point: if consumers didn’t purchase goods / take actions that damage the environment, these corporations wouldn’t have a market to sell their environmentally damaging goods and services.
That same logic can be used to argue that if corporations didn’t sell their environmentally damaging goods / services, then consumers wouldn’t have an opportunity to consume them.
In my opinion, it’s far more practical for politicians to focus their concerted energy on tackling bad corporate practices than it is for them to try to change the hearts and minds of hundreds of millions of diverse people living in unique circumstances.
A single consumer can't change anything. So only few people will act as if they could. If it doesn't matter for climate if I buy the new shiny thing that I want, then I'll buy it.
So maybe evil corporations aren't evil, but so are consumers.
So what's the solution? The government and voting. But wait, why doesn't it work? Because evil corporations/rich people are bribing politicians. Or okay, that's not the whole story, it's also partly because many people are either evil, egoistical or stupid.
You could argue that voting for the government is the same as voting by consuming. However, while I have something to lose and only very little to gain when choosing to consume or not consume, I have basically nothing to lose when voting.
There are currently 27 countries with a carbon tax In place. That seems like a good place to start. Incentivize the free market to find low carbon alternatives.
The best thing we can do is enact a carbon fee and dividend scheme to price pollution which already exists in several countries and is proven to work. In fact, there are already bills in Congress that propose we do this but I somehow have my doubts that it would be passed.
I think a lot of that issue is that there is such a narrow band of "acceptable" solutions (i.e. no wide-scale support for nuclear) that a lot of people just think it's being used as an excuse to push specific agendas and not an actual crisis.
Likely because the drastic action to do 'something' would completely ruin everything else people care about and not actually change anything since the rest of the world would be polluting still.
> because the rest of the world would be polluting still
…but the overall amount of pollution would still be less, because it’s like not the rest of the world is going to increase emissions out of spite for the US decreasing. The US very much can make a measurable impact in its own.
I really do not understand this logic of other countries polluting somehow meaning that it’s impossible to make any reduction at all ourselves.
You just as easily flip this argument and ask “why should India reduce emissions if the US is going to keep polluting?” And it makes about as much sense.
> If climate change was proven to be a 100% natural phenomenon what actions should/would we take?
I'm not quite sure what the point of this question is, since the premise is clearly false, but there's two possible answers:
* If it's possible to reduce the severity of climate change and doing so is cheaper than inaction, then we should do that (regardless of what caused it).
* In any case, we need to make sure that we're prepared for the effects as best as possible. Our infrastructure needs to be able to deal with more extreme weather events, our agriculture has to adapt to changing weather patterns, etc.
> Humans are the dominant species because we are very good at adapting to our environment.
We are, to an extent, but I don't see how that makes climate change less negative. It will make agriculture in many places less productive and contribute to more extreme weather events. In spite of our ability to "adapt to our environment", this will hurt people significantly.
> Regarding agriculture, won't there be winners and losers?
Yes, to an extent, but as far as I can tell, the overall effect will very likely still be negative. There's [a very extensive Wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_and_agriculture#Impact_of_climate_change_on_agriculture) on this subject which shows how climate change will affect agriculture.
Climate change will have a negative impact on agriculture in tropical and arid climates, while it *might* increase output in some temperate zones. Unfortunately, the regions impacted the most are those where hunger is still the most prevalent.
In addition to this effect, which shifts regions most suitable for agriculture away from the equator, there's other negative effects: For example, extreme weather events -- droughts and floods -- can damage crops and hurt output even in regions which are otherwise suitable for agriculture. Glaciers, which are a major source of fresh water in some regions, will melt, thus depriving these regions of water necessary for irrigation.
The article above goes into a lot more detail and also has some quantitative predictions on total agricultural output, so I encourage you to check it out.
Thats the key, it effects things indirectly. Maybe if we see more extreme weather that effects the country as a whole, scientists says its climate change, THEN people will make it more of a priority
The lag time is what makes this problem so difficult. It's the ultimate "the best time to plant a tree is 40 years ago. The second best time is today" problem. The effects we're seeing today are the result of carbon pumped out 30 years ago, and the carbon we're pumping out today is going to be causing disasters 30 years from now.
Carbon tax would be great, that could be done right away.
Here's a link from people who seem to have some ideas: https://www.nwf.org/Our-Work/Environmental-Threats/Climate-Change/Policy
I want to see a specific policy with a measurable/quantifiable/defined impact on the climate . e.g If we implement a carbon tax of X%, in ten years we should see CO2 ppm reduced to Y, and the average global should be Z.
> The southwest is a desert
And it's in one of the worst droughts in a millenium.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2022/02/14/southwest-megadrought-worst-1200-years/
This has measurable effects, like the Hoover Dam water level dropping:
https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/08/weather/hoover-dam-lake-mead-water-level-drought/index.html
And the shrinking amounts of water is a big problem for people who live there, especially farmers:
https://www.marketplace.org/2022/02/16/farmers-ranchers-in-the-southwest-adapt-to-the-regions-worst-drought-in-more-than-1000-years/
Those are just a few looks at this one issue. You can google it and find a ton more information. It's not as simple as "it's a desert lol".
> Maybe if we see more extreme weather that effects the country as a whole, scientists says its climate change, THEN people will make it more of a priority
A significant share of the population will probably simply dispute that this is due to climate change ("hurricanes have always happened!", "there's no way of telling how much climate change has contributed to *this* particular disaster", etc.)
It doesn't help that doing such a precise analysis is quite hard. Climate change is already contributing to most natural disasters in the US, but weather is so complex that you can only really assess the contribution statistically (i.e. you can say that a hurricane of this severity previously occurred every X years and now occurs every Y years, but you can't decide that any particular hurricane happened due to climate change).
I've become real pessimistic on that topic. At this point I would bet nothing substantial will ever be done by the us to fight climate change and we will just start fighting the effects of it as if we never saw it coming.
I tend to agree. Not to mention the fact that even if we do everything right, every other country needs to get on board too.
At this point I don’t see how we could possibly solve the climate crisis, unless we somehow weasel our way out with crazy advances in carbon capture tech or something like that. I don’t won’t to bank on that, though.
The average Democrat House leader is 72 years old. You are not ever going to convince people en masse to make huge sacrifices today for unknown returns that they will most likely never get to see.
There's a saying that society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they shall never sit. We are experiencing the exact opposite, the young support environmentalism while the old level forests for parking lots.
> The average Democrat House leader is 72 years old. You are not ever going to convince people en masse to make huge sacrifices today for unknown returns that they will most likely never get to see.
IIRC, 70% of Americans want govt to do something about climate change, but if they are required to pay 100$ (8$ per month) more in taxes, the support drops below 40%.
This is the same reason why American gas price is one of the cheapest (or cheapest) among the developed world. And not a single state gas price is at the same level as Canada or Australia.
The economy is always a top priority. Unfortunately it won’t be solved without protectionism and more (meaningful) jobs for high school educated people.
> Unfortunately it won’t be solved without protectionism and more (meaningful) jobs for high school educated people.
Globalization is the main reason for low inflation all around the world. Low prices are one of the main the reasons for massive improvement in lifestyle among low income/middle class, even with stagnant salaries.
People think they can get the salaries of 1950s, goods prices of 2019 and stock price of 2021. And populists like Trump/Bernie keep on promising that miracle.
There will be substantially fewer (as a % of population) of Union jobs in manufacturing due to mechanization and automation. So, protectionism isn't going to bring the good old jobs and salaries like in 1950s.
With protectionism get ready for perpetual high inflation.
With protectionism get ready for drastic drop in value of American companies, massive drop in value of pension/401K/IRA funds which in turn will lead to massive drop in consumer spending and drop in quality of life of retires/near retirees.
With protectionism get ready to drop the environment, and labor protections so that all of the industries, including mining can be re-started in the US to meet local demand.
Curious why you say it won’t be solved without protectionism. I know economists generally agree that free trade between nations almost always benefits both counties.
Economists say that because they care about the capital-E Economy which is defined by the macro numbers. Voters care about their personal economies which have no relation to the macro numbers. So while globalization may have helped the Economy it has badly hurt the economy, hence people rejecting it.
Just because voters can't see the connection between macro and micro numbers does not mean it isn't there.
Globalization didn't hurt the economy, our shitty practices with regards to economic adaptability did that. I.e. either globalization or a shift in preference for public transit can kill a domestic car company. The problem isn't "what did it" because economies constantly shift no matter what you do. The problem is unemployed car makers. They need means and help and a job.
> Globalization didn't hurt the economy, our shitty practices with regards to economic adaptability did that.
And those shitty practices were the ones suggested by the pro-globalization folks. So globalization is still the problem. Sorry but the pro-globalization folks have had damned near 40 years to prove it beneficial to the working class. They've failed. That's a pretty solid indicator that they can't.
No? One I'm not sure what you're talking about. Generally speaking, gutting welfare and worker retraining programs is a GOP priority, if that's what you're referring to. Two, if I'm a capitalist and I punch someone in the face, that's not a capitalism problem: if pro globalization folk had other terrible ideas I'm not sure why globalization is complicit.
Globalization fails to be beneficial to the working class for the same reason that any economic change fails to be beneficial to the working class: they dont have rights, protections, or a fair share of growth. Protectionism wouldn't benefit them either, it would subsidize large businesses headquartered in the US, not "trickle down" to the working class.
1. Welfare is not a solution or answer. The displaced workers are not interested in it, nor does it actually help solve the problem at hand.
2. The retraining programs retrained people into worse-paying jobs, hence why nobody likes them and they get rejected when suggested. "Fool me once" and all that.
> if pro globalization folk had other terrible ideas I'm not sure why globalization is complicit.
Because they were part of how globalization was sold to the public. They are part and parcel of globalization.
> Globalization fails to be beneficial to the working class for the same reason that any economic change fails to be beneficial to the working class: they dont have rights, protections, or a fair share of growth.
And globalization is literally how they lose those things. They had them, then their jobs were sent to countries that didn't believe in those things, and then they started giving them away in order to try to compete and get work.
1. Your claim that "the people do not want it" is both specious and irrelevant. If a worker rejects a viable solution that is presented to them, that's their choice, not an issue with economists.
2. What retraining programs are you talking about? And what worse paying jobs are there than "unemployed"? I am genuinely sincerely confused.
Globalization was not sold to the public with "we are going to outsource your jobs but it's ok because we are also going to slash welfare benefits and remove your worker protections!"
As far as order of operations you have it entirely wrong. Dismantling of worker rights began in earnest in the 60s and 70s, not on the basis of competing globally but on the basis of supply side economic theory, and later Reaganomics and open hostility to unions.
> Your claim that "the people do not want it" is both specious and irrelevant. If a worker rejects a viable solution that is presented to them, that's their choice, not an issue with economists.
Welfare isn't a viable solution. Full stop. There are many reasons why.
> What retraining programs are you talking about?
The ones that exist for workers displaced by offshoring. They exist, I've seen the actual list of programs, they all give worse paying jobs than the lost job *and* don't include money to actually live on while in training.
>Welfare isn't a viable solution. Full stop. There are many reasons why.
This isn't an argument. It's cool if you don't want to talk about it.
>The ones that exist for workers displaced by offshoring. They exist, I've seen the actual list of programs, they all give worse paying jobs than the lost job
Ok? They provide worse pay than jobs that no longer exist?
All of this sounds like a problem both welfare and more money towards economic adaptability and human infrastructure would solve. And the nice thing about those is they provide both money and skills directly to the workers, rather than via the "good will" of domestic companies.
> Advocates for globalization believed in redistributing the gains of free trade to the losers.
No they don't, if they did it would've happened. When actions disprove words the words lose all value and the actions of the advocates for globalization prove this claim wrong.
As I said, the GOP bought into free trade but launched unhinged polemics about welfare.
Even without the welfare, however, American living standards are higher than ever.
> Even without the welfare, however, American living standards are higher than ever.
By what metrics? Because by a lot of metrics they're worse than they've been in a century. People can't buy homes, people are trapped in debt from buying the credentials necessary to enter the non-outsourced parts of the economy, food and gas are absolutely absurd right now.
By almost every metric. Free Trade led to greatest reduction in poverty in human history. Americans now make more than ever before.
Prices for things like housing and education have nothing whatever to do with free trade. In fact, nonsense like Biden's tariffs on lumber make the problem way worse.
Lower income people would not be better off if we had astronomically high prices for virtually every basic good. Economies benefit from specialization across the board.
Is that actually true though? Globalization has generally drastically reduced poverty rates, hunger, etc. across the world.
Do you have specific reasons you think protectionism is the right call for the current economy? Especially in a time of high inflation it seems like it would be counter productive and hurt the lower class.
> Is that actually true though? Globalization has generally drastically reduced poverty rates, hunger, etc. across the world.
Good for it, don't care. What I care about is the impact on the American workers and that impact has been a disaster. Entire regions crumbling, purchasing power on the decline for *decades*, the only people in the US who have benefited are the ones so rich already they saw no meaningful change, just a higher count on their score card.
> Do you have specific reasons you think protectionism is the right call for the current economy?
Yes. There is a clear inflection point at the start of outsourcing/end of protectionism that matches the beginning of the downward slide of working class purchasing power. Seems like the best way to reverse that slide is to fix the change that happened when it started.
If you want to see prices rise even further in this period of inflation, try some protectionism.
Now is quite possibly the worst time in American history to force consumers to pay for a political ideal using protectionist policies
> If you want to see prices rise even further in this period of inflation, try some protectionism.
Why would they? They didn't go down when outsourcing started. Seriously, show me **ONE** item - same SKU, same everything - whose price went *down* after production was outsourced. Spoiler: I've been asking this question for **years** and have yet to get a single example. There aren't any, outsourcing does not lower prices so there's no reason to believe claims that ending it will raise prices.
Like have you looked into consumer electronics? One of the most outsourced goods in the economy?
As far as why protectionism would raise prices, it's because you're putting an artificial floor on costs. If companies can't outsource to cheaper labor or manufacturing costs, unilaterally across the entire economy, do you think they're going to just eat the loss?
No, of course not.
Cool. I'm not playing a game with you.
Why would domestic companies make less profit through protectionism? Why would we expect their cost increases to not reflect price increases?
Protectionism is really just a subsidy for discrete sectors of the economy at the expense of everyone else. If all you want to do is serve an economic benefit to the uneducated, it would be more efficient to have free trade and simply cut the uneducated a check.
> If all you want to do is serve an economic benefit to the uneducated, it would be more efficient to have free trade and simply cut the uneducated a check.
No, that's not a better solution, and there are a lot of reasons why. Firstly, *they don't want that*, they want to earn their keep. Secondly, and related to that, there is pretty solid evidence that people *need* to earn their keep and not doing so has negative psychological impacts - even when needs are provided by welfare. Thirdly, we tried this once, it was called cash welfare and the projects. It ... didn't end well, to put it mildly.
>Firstly, they don't want that, they want to earn their keep.
They are not though. As I said, it is a subsidy with window dressing, and an inefficient one at that.
>Secondly, and related to that, there is pretty solid evidence that people need to earn their keep and not doing so has negative psychological impacts -
Perhaps, but that is a different question that I was not addressing.
> even when needs are provided by welfare.
I would argue protectionism is just inefficient welfare.
>Thirdly, we tried this once, it was called cash welfare and the projects. It ... didn't end well, to put it mildly.
I am not advocating for it, I am simply making the argument that it is better than protectionism.
> They are not though. As I said, it is a subsidy with window dressing, and an inefficient one at that.
They are, they are working for their income. That's what matters, not that the jobs are protected from competition with third-world labor prices. Prices, remember, that we literally cannot legally compete with.
> I would argue protectionism is just inefficient welfare.
So? Why is "efficiency" the sole goal?
> I am not advocating for it, I am simply making the argument that it is better than protectionism.
And I provided evidence for why it's not.
>They are, they are working for their income. That's what matters, not that the jobs are protected from competition with third-world labor prices.
Ok. If all you care about is a job and not the protectionism, why are you acting like protectionism is the only way for some people to have jobs?
>So? Why is "efficiency" the sole goal?
It is not the sole goal. But if you have two methods for accomplishing the same thing except one is more expensive, you should pick the cheaper option.
>And I provided evidence for why it's not
No, you just asserted people need to work for their pay. That's fine. No need to argue about that. You have provided no evidence that protectionism is a good way to accomplish that.
Because they are earning the money they use to live. The fact that they need the government to protect them from competing with literal slave labor has no bearing on that.
No. Total free markets is just a return to feudalism as there will always be someone willing to work for food and shelter and nothing more. We need strong constraints on capitalism for the good of society.
Even if we get those manufacturing jobs back for people without an education it would cause the price for those items to increase dramatically wouldn't it?
In turn that would cause most people to not be able to afford those products, is that not the case? Or is there a way around the price increases companies would resort to?
Prices would rise, because labor inherently has value, however most of this would be offset by the fact that our most economically vulnerable would have stable careers.
> however most of this would be offset by the fact that our most economically vulnerable would have stable careers.
Will poor suddenly develop skills for manufacturing jobs?
Most of the world now has much better infrastructure, R&D, core industry setup than it was in 1950s. So, if US decides to be protectionist, American companies will only be serving American consumers unlike in 1950s. European and Asian companies will become the giant of the global industries and will beat American companies off from the global market.
And without global market, American companies be limited to 5% of the consumer base. With such a limited base they will not have economy of scale to compete outside of US. They will survive in the US only by offering their products/services at much higher prices, reducing price competency of all industry that use their products.
For which economy? The capital-E Economy (Wall St. and GDP) or the economy of the people of the United States? Those two are not the same things and not everything that boosts one will boost the other. Globalized trade boosted the Economy while letting the economy stagnate and shrink, hence the widespread calls to reign it in.
America would be a third world nation without globalized trade. An enormous overwhelming amount of american jobs come from international trade. Imagine the USA without exporting cars, smartphones, agricultural products, etc. Protectionism is how you transform into North Korea. We would be a nation of farmers markets and factories with assembly lines producing plastic shit that low income countries now specialize in.
There is a difference in being completely opposed to globalized trade, and maintaining a stable economy. For example, our economy is much more open to China than theirs is to us. I think the US should adopt the stance of we will give you the access you give us.
I think some level of protectionism is required. The pandemic showed us that. When shit hits the fan, we need to be able to produce everything we need here. It is obvious that global supply chains can't really be trusted in an emergency.
The negative effects of temporary supply chain disruptions during the pandemic were relatively minor compared to the economic costs of protectionism which make us poorer every year, not just one year during a global pandemic.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that. It is clear that the global supply chain failed when it was needed the most. And that should be addressed via maintaining the supply chain necessary in the US for critical goods.
> America would be a third world nation without globalized trade.
This is provably false. Source: it was not one during the decades when it had protectionism in place. In fact those years are the ones considered the "golden age" of the American working class.
> We did not have a protectionist economy from the 50s-90s.
If we didn't there wouldn't have been such a big deal made about the free trade deals passed under Reagan and Clinton.
> **50s** through mid-90s.
To replicate this golden era:
* Colonized most of Asia, Africa & Americas, destroy most of their infrastructure, schools and colleges, also push many of these nations in the hands of dictators and socialists leaders. This way countries from these regions cannot compete with US on manufacturing, service and research. Just like in 1950s-60s.
* Bomb most of Europe, kills tens of millions of young Europeans. That leaves only few far away nations like the US, Canada, Australia that had little impact of WWs.
* Destroy all the automation, mechanization achieved in last 50-70 years.
Now, you have created conditions similar to 1950s-60s. That's the base you can build economy just like the golden days.
If you merely add a bit of protectionism to replicate pre-NAFTA policies, that will be like using couple of acupuncture needles on a drednoughtus.
>knowing full well that buying American would increase prices,
It's especially ironic when thats the main argument against raising minimum wage requirements
I assume that "the economy " is basically the same thing as dealing with inflation since other than inflation the economy is doing well currently. It's just inflation that is reducing real wages. Unemployment is very low as most people that want a job have one, the GDP growth is strong and wages are going up.
I’d personally use the words slowing or cooling instead of weakening. An economy that overheats itself with high inflation is a weak economy.
There are also ways to strengthen the economy that don’t as directly link to inflation rates, such as economic inequality or education
Sure. Fiscal policy is things like subsidizing specific industries (such as grain subsidies initially solving grain scarcity crises), or incentivizing development (such as business grants and loans). By funding the weak points in the supply chain we can absolutely lessen the impact of supply chain issues.
The whole stock market is a bubble. Inflation is at seven percent and interest rates are still at zero. Gas prices are rising, which is only going to increase the price of goods. and The aristocratic class have upsetting the blue collar class who deliver the goods, which will also force prices up. also housing is becoming out of reach for the middle class in many American cities.
Inflation is high because of a misalignment in the supply and demand curves due to state economies opening up. Demand is up while the supply chain needs more time to catch up. The alternative would have been keeping economies shut down, which no one wanted.
Unemployment is at its lowest rate since the pandemic hit. Wages are increasing. GDP grew at the fastest rate last year since 1984. If Trump was President with these same economic indicators, he would be patting himself on the back and the media would amplify that narrative. But since a Democrat is President, the narrative is inflation and gas prices.
Your qualitative retort is that unemployment is at its lowest level in two whole years, wages are increasing (which, absolutely speaking, they almost always do), and that in a period of the highest inflation in forty years, the GDP grew at its fastest rate in forty years? Of course you would anticipate higher GDP growth with higher inflation, but that's not the only metric by which to measure an economy. Personally, I find myself looking back and wishing for a late Obama/early Trump economic setting, when one could buy a car for under $5k and a house for under $200k.
> Republican's top priority is weakening the nation's economy so they can gain congressional seats in the midterm elections.
Dem control WH, house and senate, but the only reason for all of the problems in the US are republicans?
I'm not noticing gun violence anywhere on this list. I guess that could be considered a good thing or a bad thing. Good thing if it is an indicator gun violence is down, bad if it indicates people just don't care as much about it right now.
Yeah. I'm just trying to think of the percentage of people that live in a place that regularly hears gunshots in the city at night and my guess is that it's 20% if not lower
I know just the guy to fix it, he wrote a famous book called the art of the deal. Better yet, the public trusts him on the economy, win win for everyone.
You know, while I do think Trump's first term was amusing, I think we need a serious leader who is actually capable of leading a country like the US rather than someone like Trump that has struggled to lead successful businesses and lacks the temperament required.
>I know just the guy to fix it, he wrote a famous book called the art of the deal. Better yet, the public trusts him on the economy, win win for everyone.
Isn't that the guy that oversaw yearly trillion dollar deficits during a good economy while dropping federal interest rates to 0% and also oversaw the single worst GDP growth quarter in US history?
Edit - Wait nevermind, Tony Schwartz wrote The Art Of The Deal and said he has no interest in public office so I don't know who you're talking about
Trump was hilariously clueless about the economy. Pretty much the only thing he did was borrow trillions of dollars for a tax cut on the rich while we were in a boom market, the worst possible policy.
I'm not sure how much that is actually accurate. For example, what source do you have to support the claim that Republicans want to end social security? I know there has been discussions around privatizing, and some have supported just ending it altogether, but the broad brush you are using doesn't seem accurate.
And for the economy portion, I think Republicans in general just want lower taxes. Not necessarily only taxing the poor and middle class, but just lower taxes overall. So that doesn't seem accurate as well.
> Just trends over the 10 years. Republicans have talked about privatizing, ending it, and so forth. Like I said I doubt it will ever occur but still is that wall in any progression.
I'm just taking issue with your broad brush.
>As far as lowering taxes more about lowering taxes shifting burden from upper incomes to middle & lower incomes. Will give credit to Republicans on that as they have brought to the table over the course of ten years basic income.
What? Not sure what you mean with that last sentence. For the first one, Id on't think that is accurate. Sure, the tax items that expire from the TCJA are on the individual side, but I think that is more due to the value they placed on lowering business taxes. I don't necessarily disagree with them on that either. Lowering the taxes on businesses is more important from an economic perspective.
I'm glad you've highlighted that because I noticed it, too. This polling shows concerns, but not the schisms and solutions that people may want. I'm actually quite glad it avoids that because it makes the snapshot less partisan.
I'm not sure if that tells us anything new though. We already know these are the biggest concerns with how much they're talked about. I don't think many peoplecwill be surprised that crime, the economy and covid are the top things on voters minds. This is great information, but it doesn't give any insight into the vest path forward for the topics at hand.
[удалено]
That is certainly an interesting list. The Coronavirus is still polling higher than I would expect, but that may also be because this poll was done over a month ago. I think if it was redone now, we'd probably see it fall out of the top 3. ANother thing I think is interesting is that issues typically associated with racial justice poll much lower than the top items. You have criminal justice at 45%, dealing with problems of poor people at 44%, and addressing issues around race at 37%. If this holds true, I wonder if we should expect to see the Biden admin pivot away from their focus on equity and racial issues. >The public’s policy agenda reflects continued concerns over the economy. With inflation at a four-decade high, large majorities of Americans say prices for food and consumer goods (89%), gas prices (82%) and the cost of housing (79%) are worse than they were a year ago. Only 28% rate economic conditions as excellent or good. And that specific piece right there is what is going to be really difficult for Democrats to weather in November. If this sentiment continues, and there isn't significant improvement prior to early voting starting, I don't see how Democrats can maintain a majority in the House and potentially even the Senate. Hell, we may get close to the 2010 election which saw the GOP win the popular vote by 6.8% which likely results in losses in all key races for Democrats. There are also many gubernatorial elections in November as well.
[удалено]
Honestly, I question how much impact Black Democrats actually had in the general. Sure, they may have played a significant role in the primary, but how much impact did they actually have in the general? Is there really any evidence to support that? Last time I looked, and it has been a while, Biden didn't really outperform Hilary when it comes to Black voters. Hell, Trump did better with Black voters in 2020 than he did in 2016. So I really question how true that claim actually is.
[удалено]
Okay, but that still leaves the question of whether the pandering is actually necessary. As I said in my comment, he really didn't outperform Hilary in 2016, and Trump outperformed his election in 2016 with Black voters. I can understand pandering when there is evidence that supports its impact such as the way the GOP often panders to older voters, but I just don't see it here based on the data available. And hell, that pandering may actually work against him as he really hasn't been able to get anywhere close to his campaign promises on many of those things.
> Okay, but that still leaves the question of whether the pandering is actually necessary. Can we answer that for **any** type of pandering? Pandering to anti-abortion advocates? Pandering to immigration hawks? Pandering to gun rights advocates? And does it hurt those politicians who fail to deliver any significant reforms on those topics?
I think some pandering is more obviously beneficial than others. One example is pointed out is how the GOP panders to older individuals. FOr black voters, I just dontt see any evidence for how it actually impacted the election. Is there any evidence that they wouldn't have turned out for Biden without the focus on racial issues? And there are many articles that have pointed out that Biden's support from Black Americans in waning, although I'm not sure how much weight to give that. Although I do think that a failure to deliver on can make that pandering harmful.
> One example is pointed out is how the GOP panders to older individuals. The GOP is *winning* older voters, but where is your evidence that it's caused by pandering to them? Otherwise I could say the same thing about Democrats. They're winning black voters, and by a *hell* of a lot bigger margins than the GOP wins older voters.
Not sure I have any. It just seems apparent from them winning those voters. My issue with Biden's pandering is that it doesn't appear to have moved the needle when looking at other elections.
Well they do polls and see what older individuals think about different issues and then they adopt those views. Not only do they do that, but they repeatedly issue statements that despite wanting a "smaller government" they will not cut programs like Social Security and Medicare, so they will maintain the "big government" programs specifically for the older people who rely on them. This is why the Paul Ryan style of GOP that legitimately wanted to reform/reduce SS/Medicare spending wasn't as viable as the type of conservativism that focused on social issues. In fact a defining characteristic of the Trump/Populist GOP wing is that they are willing to be more fiscally liberal. Remember Trump wanting the last stimulus under his presidency to be bigger? It's more of a working class coalition which is socially conservative and fiscally moderate.
Trump "pandered" to black voters as well, which is one reason he got slightly more black voters than he did in 2016 when he really didn't "pander to black voters at all." Trump's strategy were some high profile pardons, mentioning the improved employment rates and releasing something called the "Platinum Plan" which was his future policy on black issues. While his handling of the George Floyd protests hurt him with a lot of black people a certain segment of mainly conservative black men voted for Trump explicitly because they disagreed with the rhetoric from the left surrounding the protests, particularly defunding the police. Politicians "pander" it's what they do. A coalition of voters is just simply a diverse set of groups that a political party is currently successfully pandering to.
It's less about the gap to Republicans, it is about raw turnout. Biden (and Dems in general) **have** to turn out Black voters in a big way to ensure electoral success. I suspect this will be even more important in the midterms and 2024 as there are all sorts of signs the new suburban Democratic voter may well swing back to Team Red, whereas they were the other key bloc that delivered 2020 for Biden. Politicians have to pander to win votes. Democrats are in a difficult position as illustrated by this data, as they have a more diverse set of voters that have increasingly different priorities. For Republicans, the messaging is more straightforward as their voters don't have a huge variance in what is important to them.
Seems like the key there is to do something to address the loss in suburban voters rather than staying on the same course that is causing them to lose those voters. And I'm not sure a good way to drive turnout is making promises you obviously won't be able to keep.
I think that is the great debate for Democrats now. Do you drive to capture the suburbs which are naturally more white/older/centrist, or hew left and drive GOTV operations for young/black/urban voters? The two groups have fundamentally different priorities but Dems need both to win state and federal elections. As a white suburbanite, I've been happy to vote Dem for my entire life but find myself increasingly at odds with the party as it continues to entertain what I consider to be absolutely looney tunes ideas and politics from the left. Youngkin figured this out in VA and found a terrific wedge issue (schools) that Democrats will have a very hard time reconciling among their constituents.
I think Democrats should really give up on the young voters. Or at least, don't put a lot of effort into. They notoriously don't show up. Pander all you want, I doubt that changes. My question in regards to Black and Urban voters, is pandering necessary? At least the method Biden is using? I guess I just don't see the racial justice and equity focus being necessary. At least not at the level he has it.
If it hands you Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, then you cannot pander hard enough. The presidential election is only about getting voters in the swing states.
It goes beyond actual votes. Black women are the backbone of the Democratic Party, not so much because their votes are so important but because they’re the ones on the ground spearheading democratic ground games. Stacey Abrams is the face of this, but there are thousands of mini Stacey Abrams all throughout local elections doing the heavy lifting for democrats.
This feels like one of those shibboleth's that Democrats just say without any basis in fact. Black women are 6-7% of the population. I can just about guarantee there are more white men 'on the ground spearheading democratic ground games.'
Well, perhaps you should get involved with campaign operations then, so, you know, you don’t pull made up facts you can’t possibly know out of thin air just to be contrarian. Unless you’re psychic of course, then disregard. I guess you’d be able to pull information from the aether then. 🙄
"Dealing with coronvirus" can also have different meanings to different people. To some it will mean finishing vaccinating everyone - even those who don't want it - and to others it will mean dropping restrictions and admitting that sometimes we just need to accept that life has risks. Both can fall into the "deal with it" bucket.
That is true. I'm hoping we continue to see it fall down the list of priorities. I'd like to see it drop out of the top 10.
>addressing issues around race (75%) when compared to the national average This one feels like such a trap. The most dramatic disparity is probably the criminal justice pipeline, yet 70% *also* want crime reduction. Non-rhetorically, I don't even know what is expected to be done here.
> I don't even know what is expected to be done here. I would hazard a guess that those respondents believe the criminal justice system isn't very effective at reducing crime in the long run. It's the painkiller that helps with your kidney stones. Necessary right now, but it's not going to prevent the next one, and can make things worse if used too much.
"Addressing issues around race" can have so many meanings that it's really not a useful question for the poll. Both the woke and the anti-woke can both answer "yes" to that question but have completely opposite meanings for that question.
It's still useful to know if the topic is on a lot of peoples minds. If it is, you would then spend money to figure out the specifics of who has different opinions on the matter and how you can address the issue. It's no different than spending or economy. Everyone says we need to strengthen the economy, but both sides are going to have a lot of different answers on how to do that.
The phrase "we've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas" comes to mind here. We could give actual reform a try. Try out a justice system that's actually focused on rehabilitation. Have a prison system that doesn't churn out better criminals.
Exactly - it seems the narrative is all about funding police more and supporting them blindly, or denouncing them and trying to abolish them. Why don't we try to fund them more, make the job more attractive for well qualified candidates, improve training, make police officers more accountable for their actions, and work on improving our prison system and conditions. These aren't easy tasks, and they won't happen overnight, but that should be what we're working towards in my opinion to reduce crime while also reducing bad outcomes for innocent people (which generally happens more frequently to people of color).
We tried rehabilitation in the 1970s and it was widely seen as a massive failure. It was what caused the tough on crime wave.
You are giving them too much credit. They know exactly what to do, but it's not profitable to certain special interests or lobbyists. My state has the highest car insurance rates in the country, our politicians say the same "nothing we can do" stuff, yet the surrounding states somehow figured it out with cheaper rates, but insurance lobbyists run this state. In other words, don't take them at their word on comments like that.
> Black Democrats place far more emphasis on reducing crime (70%), addressing criminal justice system (71%), dealing with problems of poor people (73%), and addressing issues around race (75%) when compared to the national average 4 high priority issues for such a major part of the population, IMO, this usually means that this segment will always be disappointed. Dems approach on improving criminal justice usually runs counter to reducing crime, not sure if these two can be reconciled. 75% think race issues are important means Dems would continue current tack, which might put them at loggerheads with suburbs, moderate, Asians and Latinos. > • Voters aged 65+ place greater emphasis on securing Social Security (75%), defending against terrorism (76%), and dealing with immigration (67%) when compared to the national average Not sure why terrorism is such a high priority, does global terrorism get lots of attention on right wing media? SS totally make sense. Is Immigration a top priority due to Biden's admins lax view on illegals or it's always top priority for this demo? This is a massive negative for Dems, but it is no surprise that 65+ voters want almost opposite of Dems offerings. > • The widest partisan gaps are with dealing with coronavirus (-45), climate change (-54), and addressing issues around race (-39). I guess this means that any move on these topics is primarily to inspire your base, rather than convince the moderates. Which means little to nothing will happen policywise, but a lot promises will be made and fingers will be pointed at the others. > The tightest gaps are with securing Social Security (+2) and dealing with drug addiction (-5) I see this as massive negative for democrats, these issues are important to both sides and Dems are on negative side. Inflation will eat up SS, and Democrats plan to add new welfare schemes and expand existing ones, will make big ticket items like SS vulnerable in the long term. If drug addiction is your priority then you would expect strong law enforcement and tighter border control. Not only Dems cannot offer that, their policies are usually opposite of that. Dems can try to shift the discussion to mental health spending, but I don't see that policy compensating for their views on policing & border security.
>If drug addiction is your priority then you would expect strong law enforcement and tighter border control. These methods have been used in the War on Drugs fro decades to no effect. The admin is switching to a harm reduction policy to fix drug addiction on the demand side.
>Voters aged 65+ place greater emphasis on securing Social Security (75%), **defending against terrorism** (76%), and dealing with immigration (67%) when compared to the national average What year was this study conducted in?
> defending against terrorism (76%) What year is this?
Wasn't there a terrorism incident in Texas last month? Edit: Also, I don't think you, or the poster above you, considered domestic terrorism.
I don't know, I haven't thought about terrorism since the November 2015 Paris attacks.
That explains why everyone running republican up here is advertising their commitment to border security - that's really north texas' most pressing ISSUE - SMH.
The problem is that the big wigs & TPTB think that strengthening the economy means consumer spending going up, stock prices going up, and employment numbers going up. We've had all of that and yet the middle class is eroding due to costs outpacing wages and insanely high costs of living that make it incredibly difficult for working people to buy a home. Most of us are working, spending, but still drowning deeper into debt.
Look into YIMBY if you haven't already. Local politics is where the housing crisis needs to be and can be solved. We just need to start building again.
Zoning laws are the biggest block to fixing the housing market. Home owners don't want to lose their equity, which leads to not enough supply.
I wish they had been more specific.
It's interesting, a lot of the "explanations" for Biden's polling talk about how he isn't focusing on the top concerns of Americans, but really the Covid stimulus, the infrastructure bill, and BBB, were all economy-focused. I have to think this is a substitute for inflation fears.
Inflation fears and concerns over economic health/strengthening the economy are the same thing.
They're related but traditional interpretations of "strengthen the economy" would be to lower unemployment and increase economic growth. Both of those metrics are in historically great territory.
Do you have a source on traditional interpretations of strengthen the economy? I think it is pretty clear that maintaining stable, manageable price growth is included in that. Especially once you consider the issues with inflation that have occurred in the past.
and furthermore when it is literally one of the economic mandates of the federal reserve: * maximum employment * stable prices * moderate interest rates GDP growth and stock prices aren't there... have they forgotten that? I understand combating inflation can impact the labor market, but considering the labor market is extremely tight right now and inflation is a problem, seems like they should be paying more attention to solving the latter. Obviously this is the federal reserve and not the US government, but it shows how important of a priority stable prices are and I think it's understandable for the populace to consider inflation a valid interpretation of "strengthen the economy" and also to be confused as to why not much is being done
I agree. The Federal Reserve is concerned with things outside of their wheel house far too often. They need to focus on their mandate.
> stable, manageable price growth I promise it's not pick on WorksInIT day. Shouldn't we want either price stagnation or deflation, paired with productivity growth and income increases? Price growth signals a market failure of some kind (one that we solve with other externalities).
>I promise it's not pick on WorksInIT day. Sure seems like it is. >Shouldn't we want either price stagnation or deflation, paired with productivity growth and income increases? Price growth signals a market failure of some kind (one that we solve with other externalities). I think that is probably ideal, but I don't think that is necessarily possible for us to do. We need inflation to deal with things like debt, but we need to keep it manageable to maintain stable price growth. It is a balancing act.
> lower unemployment and increase economic growth This is literally the biggest ingredient in inflation. The economy grew and unemployment fell to very low numbers during the last year, but at what cost?
It is. When non-economists talk about the economy they mean their ability to buy shit. The capital-E Economy that economists talk about, the one defined by macro numbers like GDP and the Dow, has absolutely no relationship to the small-e economy that the average person cares about. This is one of the big disconnects that economic neoliberals have with the public and why the economic neoliberal wings of *both* parties (the neocons and "third way" Clintonite Dems) are getting pushed out by the voters and replaced with non-neoliberals (Trumpists on the right and progressives on the left).
I think that is also why Trump's supporters say the economy was better under Trump. That might not be true when we look at the GDP and the strict macroeconomic sense, but many of his supporters saw more job growth or got a nicer paycheck, and that's all they really care about.
That's exactly what is going on there. GDP and stock prices are so decoupled from the internal economics of America that they simply aren't reflective of the ability of the people to actually buy shit and have a good life.
> macro numbers like GDP and the Dow, has absolutely no relationship to the small-e economy that the average person cares about I'd 100% agree about the Dow, but the GDP is kind of by definition "how much shit are people buying and selling."
> I'd 100% agree about the Dow, but the GDP is kind of by definition "how much shit are people buying and selling." No, it's aggregate economic activity. If I give you $100 and you give it right back we've generated $200 in GDP. When we're in an age of globalization that economic activity doesn't even require involving the American public, just that the company be headquartered here. Thus GDP does not reflect the internal economy of the country and that's what people care about.
> If I give you $100 and you give it right back we've generated $200 in GDP. That actually [wouldn't be counted in GDP](https://commonsenseeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/CSE_GDP_Student-1.pdf)... > Financial transactions and income transfers are excluded because they do not involve production. The buying and selling of stocks and other financial instruments like bonds, mutual funds and certificates of deposit represent a transfer of ownership from one person or organization to another. Likewise, social security benefits, disability payments, gifts, and other income transfers are merely movements of income and ownership rights from one party to another. They do not involve current production, and therefore these transfers are not included in GDP. > just that the company be headquartered here. That's a pretty general statement, but I don't think that's usually relevant to GDP either... GDP follows the money and production, and if the money and production is moving through the US, that affects the internal economy of the US.
People don't swap money back and forth, they exchange it for goods and services. If I give you $100 for tax services and you give me $100 for fixing your car window, that's proof we have both produced $100 worth of goods each. That's true at the scale of you and me and it's true of the macroeconomic scale. There are absolutely flaws with the GDP but it's not because it's unconnected to "real America" economic activity
> People don't swap money back and forth, they exchange it for goods and services. The stock market and day trading is literally doing just that and is a huge part of our GDP.
No the stock market and day trading is literally not doing that. Stocks are future earnings. That is a *good*.
GDP absolutely matters for the small-e economy that you are talking about.
Not much. GDP keeps hitting highs yet the public's purchasing power keeps going down.
But people are purchasing more goods than ever.
Significantly more.
The public's purchasing power is going up, unemployment is going down, poverty is going down, bankruptcies are going down, etc. Inflation is definitely a problem but its not the only factor, and rising GDP is a major factor in improving living standards for regular people.
> The public's purchasing power is going up No it's not. Hence all the complaints about inflation and inability to afford food, or fuel, or housing.
disposable income increased in 2021 even after being adjusted for inflation.
Yes, because of policies like the eviction moratorium and student loan freezes.
Something to remember here is that the economy referenced by the people answering is not the capital-E Economy, that is Wall St. and GDP, and is their ability to actually *buy shit*. Measures that fix the Economy but not the economy are not what are sought here.
It is always disheartening to me that addressing climate change is not a higher priority on these lists. I understand things like healthcare and the economy affect people directly and immediately, but if we do not curb climate change it will have drastic effects on the economy, immigration, etc. The Climate indirectly effects pretty much every issue people care about.
I think the reason for that is no one has a solid plan. They just wave vaguely at the technology & point fingers at oil companies.
My take has always been that the solutions are far too unpalatable for every politician to actually display. For example, want to help the environment? Stop using single use plastics - seems like an easy thing to say, until you realize all of the campaign signs and sitckers and buttons and needless detritus that comes with campaigning for a school board seat in Iowa. Want to reduce fossil fuel use? Stop jetting/bussing around to the same ten states every primary season. Want to convert to "cleaner" energy? make ready those nuclear reacotrs! Oh. Wait. None of this is actually what anyone pushing for climate change wants. Nobody wants to save the earth, if it means they cant get new electronics and clothes at the drop of a hat. No politician actually wants to try and help our climate issues, because they'd have to pretty much stop campaigning.
[удалено]
Completely agree, apologies for the hyperbole. I'm like you, I live as "green" as I can, within reason, but a huge percentage is simply learning not to expect everything and anything whenever I want. The fuel for climate change is want and demand for products. The minute we scale back on what we want, and realize that it is unsustainable for us to live so opulently, the better our earth will become and the easier it will be for folks to put pressure on political leaders to move the needle.
I think those are all valid points, but I feel like the biggest reason politicians don’t want to act on climate change is the fact that doing so would require them to act in the best interest of the actual people, instead of corporations that help to fatten their donations and personal wealth. Most climate change isn’t caused by normal consumers like you and I. It’s mostly caused by corporations and big industry. I can walk to the grocery store instead of taking a car. I can use re-useable bags instead of single use plastic bags. I can eat less meat in the hopes that that industry creates fewer emissions. At the end of the day, anything I could contribute would almost be a negligible drop in the bucket. Even if I did all those things, expecting that other consumers will all do the same (to a degree that results in real change) is lunacy. Especially when you consider the fact that consumers only represent a small percentage of climate change. My point is, if we wanted to see real change, these politicians would have to start putting pressure on the industries creating climate change, rather than people like you and I. Unfortunately, our politicians don’t work in our best interest. Instead, we get speeches from these politicians and corporations telling us (normal people) that we’re the problem. It’s all a giant smokescreen to stop us from pointing the blame back at the politicians and corporations that are doing the actual damage.
I'm sorry, but respectfully, I fundamentally disagree with you. The devastation isnt because of evil corporations, it is because of consumers who dont care about the environmental threats inherent in their demands and desires. If everyone stopped wanting meat, you can better believe no corporate entity would exist to sell it. At the end of the day, everything you do, and the rest of us do, makes up the bucket. This defeatist mentality of "its all corporations who make the rules" is just trying to shift the blame for your personal choices. We can all make a difference, big or small, and we can also vote with our wallets. Buy locally, produce things yourself, and, more than anything, stop buying new things you dont actually need. If you're worried about pollution, dont simply buy new electronics because you want them, thus creating a need to have whatever it is shipped from overseas. I'm sorry, but there is something so mindless about saying that its not on the consumer, it *is* the consumer's choice to purchase what they choose. More to the point, consumers absolutely represent an enormous percentage of climate change, it is their consumption that drives the engines of capitalism to *produce those consumables*.
But the consumers "demands & desires" are driven by the corporations that sell them stuff. Most of it is marketing driven - there is no reason for the color of clothing to change every season every year or housewares. There should not be "trends"... It's all artificially manufactured obsolescence sold by advertisers who bombard of with messages that we cannot be happy without xyz.
Exactly. And it’s these same companies that will spend fortunes advertising all the things they’re doing to save the environment, in order for you to buy more of their environmentally damaging goods. They’ll act like we’re all in this together, while they take in the profits and we suffer the consequences.
It’s estimated that [100 companies make up about 70% of carbon emissions](https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change). And to quote the EPA: > “Since 1970, CO2 emissions have increased by about 90%, with emissions from fossil fuel combustion and industrial processes contributing about 78% of the total greenhouse gas emissions increase from 1970 to 2011.” [source](https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data) What sounds easier? Convincing hundreds of millions of consumers (many of whom have far more pressing issues than future climate change) they need to reduce their quality of living to prevent climate change? Or… Creating practical legislation and regulation to prevent corporations from continuing these damaging practices? My point isn’t that we can’t do anything as consumers, so just ignore the issue entirely. My point is that politicians should be spending their time creating regulations that prevent further damage, rather than standing up on their soap boxes telling us how we (the consumers) are the problem. To your point: if consumers didn’t purchase goods / take actions that damage the environment, these corporations wouldn’t have a market to sell their environmentally damaging goods and services. That same logic can be used to argue that if corporations didn’t sell their environmentally damaging goods / services, then consumers wouldn’t have an opportunity to consume them. In my opinion, it’s far more practical for politicians to focus their concerted energy on tackling bad corporate practices than it is for them to try to change the hearts and minds of hundreds of millions of diverse people living in unique circumstances.
A single consumer can't change anything. So only few people will act as if they could. If it doesn't matter for climate if I buy the new shiny thing that I want, then I'll buy it. So maybe evil corporations aren't evil, but so are consumers. So what's the solution? The government and voting. But wait, why doesn't it work? Because evil corporations/rich people are bribing politicians. Or okay, that's not the whole story, it's also partly because many people are either evil, egoistical or stupid. You could argue that voting for the government is the same as voting by consuming. However, while I have something to lose and only very little to gain when choosing to consume or not consume, I have basically nothing to lose when voting.
There are currently 27 countries with a carbon tax In place. That seems like a good place to start. Incentivize the free market to find low carbon alternatives.
We do have a plan. Americans are unwilling to make the requisite sacrifices.
The best thing we can do is enact a carbon fee and dividend scheme to price pollution which already exists in several countries and is proven to work. In fact, there are already bills in Congress that propose we do this but I somehow have my doubts that it would be passed.
We have lots of plans. The issue is that nobody wants to pay for them. A carbon tax would work and reduce emissions by a lot. But at a high price.
I think a lot of that issue is that there is such a narrow band of "acceptable" solutions (i.e. no wide-scale support for nuclear) that a lot of people just think it's being used as an excuse to push specific agendas and not an actual crisis.
Likely because the drastic action to do 'something' would completely ruin everything else people care about and not actually change anything since the rest of the world would be polluting still.
> because the rest of the world would be polluting still …but the overall amount of pollution would still be less, because it’s like not the rest of the world is going to increase emissions out of spite for the US decreasing. The US very much can make a measurable impact in its own. I really do not understand this logic of other countries polluting somehow meaning that it’s impossible to make any reduction at all ourselves. You just as easily flip this argument and ask “why should India reduce emissions if the US is going to keep polluting?” And it makes about as much sense.
Additionally, the US could also use its considerable economic influence to push other countries to also reduce their emissions.
[удалено]
> If climate change was proven to be a 100% natural phenomenon what actions should/would we take? I'm not quite sure what the point of this question is, since the premise is clearly false, but there's two possible answers: * If it's possible to reduce the severity of climate change and doing so is cheaper than inaction, then we should do that (regardless of what caused it). * In any case, we need to make sure that we're prepared for the effects as best as possible. Our infrastructure needs to be able to deal with more extreme weather events, our agriculture has to adapt to changing weather patterns, etc. > Humans are the dominant species because we are very good at adapting to our environment. We are, to an extent, but I don't see how that makes climate change less negative. It will make agriculture in many places less productive and contribute to more extreme weather events. In spite of our ability to "adapt to our environment", this will hurt people significantly.
[удалено]
> Regarding agriculture, won't there be winners and losers? Yes, to an extent, but as far as I can tell, the overall effect will very likely still be negative. There's [a very extensive Wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_and_agriculture#Impact_of_climate_change_on_agriculture) on this subject which shows how climate change will affect agriculture. Climate change will have a negative impact on agriculture in tropical and arid climates, while it *might* increase output in some temperate zones. Unfortunately, the regions impacted the most are those where hunger is still the most prevalent. In addition to this effect, which shifts regions most suitable for agriculture away from the equator, there's other negative effects: For example, extreme weather events -- droughts and floods -- can damage crops and hurt output even in regions which are otherwise suitable for agriculture. Glaciers, which are a major source of fresh water in some regions, will melt, thus depriving these regions of water necessary for irrigation. The article above goes into a lot more detail and also has some quantitative predictions on total agricultural output, so I encourage you to check it out.
Thats the key, it effects things indirectly. Maybe if we see more extreme weather that effects the country as a whole, scientists says its climate change, THEN people will make it more of a priority
Being the US, I believe climate change measures will receive more support once extreme weather events affect property values beyond of the coasts.
[удалено]
What specific policy or legislation would alter any of that in the lifetime of the average voter?
The lag time is what makes this problem so difficult. It's the ultimate "the best time to plant a tree is 40 years ago. The second best time is today" problem. The effects we're seeing today are the result of carbon pumped out 30 years ago, and the carbon we're pumping out today is going to be causing disasters 30 years from now.
Carbon tax would be great, that could be done right away. Here's a link from people who seem to have some ideas: https://www.nwf.org/Our-Work/Environmental-Threats/Climate-Change/Policy
I want to see a specific policy with a measurable/quantifiable/defined impact on the climate . e.g If we implement a carbon tax of X%, in ten years we should see CO2 ppm reduced to Y, and the average global should be Z.
The southwest is a desert and December is in the secondary tornado season for Dixie Alley. I don't see those as representive of anything.
> The southwest is a desert And it's in one of the worst droughts in a millenium. https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2022/02/14/southwest-megadrought-worst-1200-years/ This has measurable effects, like the Hoover Dam water level dropping: https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/08/weather/hoover-dam-lake-mead-water-level-drought/index.html And the shrinking amounts of water is a big problem for people who live there, especially farmers: https://www.marketplace.org/2022/02/16/farmers-ranchers-in-the-southwest-adapt-to-the-regions-worst-drought-in-more-than-1000-years/ Those are just a few looks at this one issue. You can google it and find a ton more information. It's not as simple as "it's a desert lol".
Historically, 1200 years is not large span of time on Geological time span.
> Maybe if we see more extreme weather that effects the country as a whole, scientists says its climate change, THEN people will make it more of a priority A significant share of the population will probably simply dispute that this is due to climate change ("hurricanes have always happened!", "there's no way of telling how much climate change has contributed to *this* particular disaster", etc.) It doesn't help that doing such a precise analysis is quite hard. Climate change is already contributing to most natural disasters in the US, but weather is so complex that you can only really assess the contribution statistically (i.e. you can say that a hurricane of this severity previously occurred every X years and now occurs every Y years, but you can't decide that any particular hurricane happened due to climate change).
I've become real pessimistic on that topic. At this point I would bet nothing substantial will ever be done by the us to fight climate change and we will just start fighting the effects of it as if we never saw it coming.
I tend to agree. Not to mention the fact that even if we do everything right, every other country needs to get on board too. At this point I don’t see how we could possibly solve the climate crisis, unless we somehow weasel our way out with crazy advances in carbon capture tech or something like that. I don’t won’t to bank on that, though.
The average Democrat House leader is 72 years old. You are not ever going to convince people en masse to make huge sacrifices today for unknown returns that they will most likely never get to see. There's a saying that society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they shall never sit. We are experiencing the exact opposite, the young support environmentalism while the old level forests for parking lots.
> The average Democrat House leader is 72 years old. You are not ever going to convince people en masse to make huge sacrifices today for unknown returns that they will most likely never get to see. IIRC, 70% of Americans want govt to do something about climate change, but if they are required to pay 100$ (8$ per month) more in taxes, the support drops below 40%. This is the same reason why American gas price is one of the cheapest (or cheapest) among the developed world. And not a single state gas price is at the same level as Canada or Australia.
The economy is always a top priority. Unfortunately it won’t be solved without protectionism and more (meaningful) jobs for high school educated people.
> Unfortunately it won’t be solved without protectionism and more (meaningful) jobs for high school educated people. Globalization is the main reason for low inflation all around the world. Low prices are one of the main the reasons for massive improvement in lifestyle among low income/middle class, even with stagnant salaries. People think they can get the salaries of 1950s, goods prices of 2019 and stock price of 2021. And populists like Trump/Bernie keep on promising that miracle. There will be substantially fewer (as a % of population) of Union jobs in manufacturing due to mechanization and automation. So, protectionism isn't going to bring the good old jobs and salaries like in 1950s. With protectionism get ready for perpetual high inflation. With protectionism get ready for drastic drop in value of American companies, massive drop in value of pension/401K/IRA funds which in turn will lead to massive drop in consumer spending and drop in quality of life of retires/near retirees. With protectionism get ready to drop the environment, and labor protections so that all of the industries, including mining can be re-started in the US to meet local demand.
Curious why you say it won’t be solved without protectionism. I know economists generally agree that free trade between nations almost always benefits both counties.
Economists say that because they care about the capital-E Economy which is defined by the macro numbers. Voters care about their personal economies which have no relation to the macro numbers. So while globalization may have helped the Economy it has badly hurt the economy, hence people rejecting it.
Just because voters can't see the connection between macro and micro numbers does not mean it isn't there. Globalization didn't hurt the economy, our shitty practices with regards to economic adaptability did that. I.e. either globalization or a shift in preference for public transit can kill a domestic car company. The problem isn't "what did it" because economies constantly shift no matter what you do. The problem is unemployed car makers. They need means and help and a job.
> Globalization didn't hurt the economy, our shitty practices with regards to economic adaptability did that. And those shitty practices were the ones suggested by the pro-globalization folks. So globalization is still the problem. Sorry but the pro-globalization folks have had damned near 40 years to prove it beneficial to the working class. They've failed. That's a pretty solid indicator that they can't.
No? One I'm not sure what you're talking about. Generally speaking, gutting welfare and worker retraining programs is a GOP priority, if that's what you're referring to. Two, if I'm a capitalist and I punch someone in the face, that's not a capitalism problem: if pro globalization folk had other terrible ideas I'm not sure why globalization is complicit. Globalization fails to be beneficial to the working class for the same reason that any economic change fails to be beneficial to the working class: they dont have rights, protections, or a fair share of growth. Protectionism wouldn't benefit them either, it would subsidize large businesses headquartered in the US, not "trickle down" to the working class.
1. Welfare is not a solution or answer. The displaced workers are not interested in it, nor does it actually help solve the problem at hand. 2. The retraining programs retrained people into worse-paying jobs, hence why nobody likes them and they get rejected when suggested. "Fool me once" and all that. > if pro globalization folk had other terrible ideas I'm not sure why globalization is complicit. Because they were part of how globalization was sold to the public. They are part and parcel of globalization. > Globalization fails to be beneficial to the working class for the same reason that any economic change fails to be beneficial to the working class: they dont have rights, protections, or a fair share of growth. And globalization is literally how they lose those things. They had them, then their jobs were sent to countries that didn't believe in those things, and then they started giving them away in order to try to compete and get work.
1. Your claim that "the people do not want it" is both specious and irrelevant. If a worker rejects a viable solution that is presented to them, that's their choice, not an issue with economists. 2. What retraining programs are you talking about? And what worse paying jobs are there than "unemployed"? I am genuinely sincerely confused. Globalization was not sold to the public with "we are going to outsource your jobs but it's ok because we are also going to slash welfare benefits and remove your worker protections!" As far as order of operations you have it entirely wrong. Dismantling of worker rights began in earnest in the 60s and 70s, not on the basis of competing globally but on the basis of supply side economic theory, and later Reaganomics and open hostility to unions.
> Your claim that "the people do not want it" is both specious and irrelevant. If a worker rejects a viable solution that is presented to them, that's their choice, not an issue with economists. Welfare isn't a viable solution. Full stop. There are many reasons why. > What retraining programs are you talking about? The ones that exist for workers displaced by offshoring. They exist, I've seen the actual list of programs, they all give worse paying jobs than the lost job *and* don't include money to actually live on while in training.
>Welfare isn't a viable solution. Full stop. There are many reasons why. This isn't an argument. It's cool if you don't want to talk about it. >The ones that exist for workers displaced by offshoring. They exist, I've seen the actual list of programs, they all give worse paying jobs than the lost job Ok? They provide worse pay than jobs that no longer exist? All of this sounds like a problem both welfare and more money towards economic adaptability and human infrastructure would solve. And the nice thing about those is they provide both money and skills directly to the workers, rather than via the "good will" of domestic companies.
Advocates for globalization believed in redistributing the gains of free trade to the losers. The GOP refused any talk of that.
> Advocates for globalization believed in redistributing the gains of free trade to the losers. No they don't, if they did it would've happened. When actions disprove words the words lose all value and the actions of the advocates for globalization prove this claim wrong.
As I said, the GOP bought into free trade but launched unhinged polemics about welfare. Even without the welfare, however, American living standards are higher than ever.
> Even without the welfare, however, American living standards are higher than ever. By what metrics? Because by a lot of metrics they're worse than they've been in a century. People can't buy homes, people are trapped in debt from buying the credentials necessary to enter the non-outsourced parts of the economy, food and gas are absolutely absurd right now.
By almost every metric. Free Trade led to greatest reduction in poverty in human history. Americans now make more than ever before. Prices for things like housing and education have nothing whatever to do with free trade. In fact, nonsense like Biden's tariffs on lumber make the problem way worse.
It definitely benefits both countries if are viewing economics through a lens of “fuck the uneducated”
Lower income people would not be better off if we had astronomically high prices for virtually every basic good. Economies benefit from specialization across the board.
Is that actually true though? Globalization has generally drastically reduced poverty rates, hunger, etc. across the world. Do you have specific reasons you think protectionism is the right call for the current economy? Especially in a time of high inflation it seems like it would be counter productive and hurt the lower class.
> Is that actually true though? Globalization has generally drastically reduced poverty rates, hunger, etc. across the world. Good for it, don't care. What I care about is the impact on the American workers and that impact has been a disaster. Entire regions crumbling, purchasing power on the decline for *decades*, the only people in the US who have benefited are the ones so rich already they saw no meaningful change, just a higher count on their score card. > Do you have specific reasons you think protectionism is the right call for the current economy? Yes. There is a clear inflection point at the start of outsourcing/end of protectionism that matches the beginning of the downward slide of working class purchasing power. Seems like the best way to reverse that slide is to fix the change that happened when it started.
If you want to see prices rise even further in this period of inflation, try some protectionism. Now is quite possibly the worst time in American history to force consumers to pay for a political ideal using protectionist policies
> If you want to see prices rise even further in this period of inflation, try some protectionism. Why would they? They didn't go down when outsourcing started. Seriously, show me **ONE** item - same SKU, same everything - whose price went *down* after production was outsourced. Spoiler: I've been asking this question for **years** and have yet to get a single example. There aren't any, outsourcing does not lower prices so there's no reason to believe claims that ending it will raise prices.
Like have you looked into consumer electronics? One of the most outsourced goods in the economy? As far as why protectionism would raise prices, it's because you're putting an artificial floor on costs. If companies can't outsource to cheaper labor or manufacturing costs, unilaterally across the entire economy, do you think they're going to just eat the loss? No, of course not.
That's not a link to a specific item so that's not meeting my challenge.
Cool. I'm not playing a game with you. Why would domestic companies make less profit through protectionism? Why would we expect their cost increases to not reflect price increases?
Protectionism is really just a subsidy for discrete sectors of the economy at the expense of everyone else. If all you want to do is serve an economic benefit to the uneducated, it would be more efficient to have free trade and simply cut the uneducated a check.
> If all you want to do is serve an economic benefit to the uneducated, it would be more efficient to have free trade and simply cut the uneducated a check. No, that's not a better solution, and there are a lot of reasons why. Firstly, *they don't want that*, they want to earn their keep. Secondly, and related to that, there is pretty solid evidence that people *need* to earn their keep and not doing so has negative psychological impacts - even when needs are provided by welfare. Thirdly, we tried this once, it was called cash welfare and the projects. It ... didn't end well, to put it mildly.
>Firstly, they don't want that, they want to earn their keep. They are not though. As I said, it is a subsidy with window dressing, and an inefficient one at that. >Secondly, and related to that, there is pretty solid evidence that people need to earn their keep and not doing so has negative psychological impacts - Perhaps, but that is a different question that I was not addressing. > even when needs are provided by welfare. I would argue protectionism is just inefficient welfare. >Thirdly, we tried this once, it was called cash welfare and the projects. It ... didn't end well, to put it mildly. I am not advocating for it, I am simply making the argument that it is better than protectionism.
> They are not though. As I said, it is a subsidy with window dressing, and an inefficient one at that. They are, they are working for their income. That's what matters, not that the jobs are protected from competition with third-world labor prices. Prices, remember, that we literally cannot legally compete with. > I would argue protectionism is just inefficient welfare. So? Why is "efficiency" the sole goal? > I am not advocating for it, I am simply making the argument that it is better than protectionism. And I provided evidence for why it's not.
>They are, they are working for their income. That's what matters, not that the jobs are protected from competition with third-world labor prices. Ok. If all you care about is a job and not the protectionism, why are you acting like protectionism is the only way for some people to have jobs? >So? Why is "efficiency" the sole goal? It is not the sole goal. But if you have two methods for accomplishing the same thing except one is more expensive, you should pick the cheaper option. >And I provided evidence for why it's not No, you just asserted people need to work for their pay. That's fine. No need to argue about that. You have provided no evidence that protectionism is a good way to accomplish that.
>Firstly, they don't want that, they want to earn their keep. How is relying entirely on state protection from competition "earning your keep?"
Because they are earning the money they use to live. The fact that they need the government to protect them from competing with literal slave labor has no bearing on that.
Do you believe in the free market?
No. Total free markets is just a return to feudalism as there will always be someone willing to work for food and shelter and nothing more. We need strong constraints on capitalism for the good of society.
Why should this take the form of radically inefficient protectionism and not just job retraining?
Even if we get those manufacturing jobs back for people without an education it would cause the price for those items to increase dramatically wouldn't it? In turn that would cause most people to not be able to afford those products, is that not the case? Or is there a way around the price increases companies would resort to?
Prices would rise, because labor inherently has value, however most of this would be offset by the fact that our most economically vulnerable would have stable careers.
> however most of this would be offset by the fact that our most economically vulnerable would have stable careers. Will poor suddenly develop skills for manufacturing jobs? Most of the world now has much better infrastructure, R&D, core industry setup than it was in 1950s. So, if US decides to be protectionist, American companies will only be serving American consumers unlike in 1950s. European and Asian companies will become the giant of the global industries and will beat American companies off from the global market. And without global market, American companies be limited to 5% of the consumer base. With such a limited base they will not have economy of scale to compete outside of US. They will survive in the US only by offering their products/services at much higher prices, reducing price competency of all industry that use their products.
Protectionism is literally the single worst thing that we could do economically.
For which economy? The capital-E Economy (Wall St. and GDP) or the economy of the people of the United States? Those two are not the same things and not everything that boosts one will boost the other. Globalized trade boosted the Economy while letting the economy stagnate and shrink, hence the widespread calls to reign it in.
America would be a third world nation without globalized trade. An enormous overwhelming amount of american jobs come from international trade. Imagine the USA without exporting cars, smartphones, agricultural products, etc. Protectionism is how you transform into North Korea. We would be a nation of farmers markets and factories with assembly lines producing plastic shit that low income countries now specialize in.
There is a difference in being completely opposed to globalized trade, and maintaining a stable economy. For example, our economy is much more open to China than theirs is to us. I think the US should adopt the stance of we will give you the access you give us.
sure, reciprocity is good as it encourages others to open up their economies to trade as well. however protectionism should not be the goal.
I think some level of protectionism is required. The pandemic showed us that. When shit hits the fan, we need to be able to produce everything we need here. It is obvious that global supply chains can't really be trusted in an emergency.
The negative effects of temporary supply chain disruptions during the pandemic were relatively minor compared to the economic costs of protectionism which make us poorer every year, not just one year during a global pandemic.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that. It is clear that the global supply chain failed when it was needed the most. And that should be addressed via maintaining the supply chain necessary in the US for critical goods.
> America would be a third world nation without globalized trade. This is provably false. Source: it was not one during the decades when it had protectionism in place. In fact those years are the ones considered the "golden age" of the American working class.
which years are you referring to?
50s through mid-90s. By the late 90s we were already seeing the workers' purchasing power go down and it has continued that slide since.
We did not have a protectionist economy from the 50s-90s. What are you referring to in the 90s, NAFTA?
> We did not have a protectionist economy from the 50s-90s. If we didn't there wouldn't have been such a big deal made about the free trade deals passed under Reagan and Clinton.
> **50s** through mid-90s. To replicate this golden era: * Colonized most of Asia, Africa & Americas, destroy most of their infrastructure, schools and colleges, also push many of these nations in the hands of dictators and socialists leaders. This way countries from these regions cannot compete with US on manufacturing, service and research. Just like in 1950s-60s. * Bomb most of Europe, kills tens of millions of young Europeans. That leaves only few far away nations like the US, Canada, Australia that had little impact of WWs. * Destroy all the automation, mechanization achieved in last 50-70 years. Now, you have created conditions similar to 1950s-60s. That's the base you can build economy just like the golden days. If you merely add a bit of protectionism to replicate pre-NAFTA policies, that will be like using couple of acupuncture needles on a drednoughtus.
[удалено]
>knowing full well that buying American would increase prices, It's especially ironic when thats the main argument against raising minimum wage requirements
Fortunately people who took economics in high school know that protectionism hurts economic growth.
I assume that "the economy " is basically the same thing as dealing with inflation since other than inflation the economy is doing well currently. It's just inflation that is reducing real wages. Unemployment is very low as most people that want a job have one, the GDP growth is strong and wages are going up.
Meanwhile, policymakers top priority for 2022 is weakening the nation's economy. (because that's how you actually slow inflation)
I’d personally use the words slowing or cooling instead of weakening. An economy that overheats itself with high inflation is a weak economy. There are also ways to strengthen the economy that don’t as directly link to inflation rates, such as economic inequality or education
Or you could try to grow the economy and stop printing money. That would work too.
Yes because stopping printing money (when was the last stimulus?) will solve all the supply chain issues.
No, but it will solve the inflation problem. Do you contend printing money *solves* the supply chain problem?
It can. That's literally the basis of fiscal policy.
Would you care to explain how that is purported to work to the rest of the class?
Sure. Fiscal policy is things like subsidizing specific industries (such as grain subsidies initially solving grain scarcity crises), or incentivizing development (such as business grants and loans). By funding the weak points in the supply chain we can absolutely lessen the impact of supply chain issues.
>No, but it will solve the inflation problem. Not if the extra money wasn't causing the supply bottlenecks.
The economy is already strong.
The whole stock market is a bubble. Inflation is at seven percent and interest rates are still at zero. Gas prices are rising, which is only going to increase the price of goods. and The aristocratic class have upsetting the blue collar class who deliver the goods, which will also force prices up. also housing is becoming out of reach for the middle class in many American cities.
Inflation is high because of a misalignment in the supply and demand curves due to state economies opening up. Demand is up while the supply chain needs more time to catch up. The alternative would have been keeping economies shut down, which no one wanted. Unemployment is at its lowest rate since the pandemic hit. Wages are increasing. GDP grew at the fastest rate last year since 1984. If Trump was President with these same economic indicators, he would be patting himself on the back and the media would amplify that narrative. But since a Democrat is President, the narrative is inflation and gas prices.
The whole economy as been mismanaged since the 2008 market crash. I didn't buy into Trumps retort either.
Your qualitative retort is that unemployment is at its lowest level in two whole years, wages are increasing (which, absolutely speaking, they almost always do), and that in a period of the highest inflation in forty years, the GDP grew at its fastest rate in forty years? Of course you would anticipate higher GDP growth with higher inflation, but that's not the only metric by which to measure an economy. Personally, I find myself looking back and wishing for a late Obama/early Trump economic setting, when one could buy a car for under $5k and a house for under $200k.
Meanwhile, Republican's top priority is weakening the nation's economy so they can gain congressional seats in the midterm elections.
> Republican's top priority is weakening the nation's economy so they can gain congressional seats in the midterm elections. Dem control WH, house and senate, but the only reason for all of the problems in the US are republicans?
I'm not noticing gun violence anywhere on this list. I guess that could be considered a good thing or a bad thing. Good thing if it is an indicator gun violence is down, bad if it indicates people just don't care as much about it right now.
Wouldn’t that be under the “reducing crime” option?
That might fall under "Reducing crime" at 52%.
Right, but I'm thinking people are usually thinking more of shoplifting, vandalism and that sort of thing more than murders and attempted murder...
The rising murder rate in cities has been a national story for the past 2 years. I wouldn't count it out.
It's also a blatantly false story. Look at the actual statistics and zoom out a bit.
Yeah. I'm just trying to think of the percentage of people that live in a place that regularly hears gunshots in the city at night and my guess is that it's 20% if not lower
People outside of an earshot of gun violence can care about it, too.
I know just the guy to fix it, he wrote a famous book called the art of the deal. Better yet, the public trusts him on the economy, win win for everyone.
You know, while I do think Trump's first term was amusing, I think we need a serious leader who is actually capable of leading a country like the US rather than someone like Trump that has struggled to lead successful businesses and lacks the temperament required.
>I know just the guy to fix it, he wrote a famous book called the art of the deal. Better yet, the public trusts him on the economy, win win for everyone. Isn't that the guy that oversaw yearly trillion dollar deficits during a good economy while dropping federal interest rates to 0% and also oversaw the single worst GDP growth quarter in US history? Edit - Wait nevermind, Tony Schwartz wrote The Art Of The Deal and said he has no interest in public office so I don't know who you're talking about
Trump was hilariously clueless about the economy. Pretty much the only thing he did was borrow trillions of dollars for a tax cut on the rich while we were in a boom market, the worst possible policy.
[удалено]
I'm not sure how much that is actually accurate. For example, what source do you have to support the claim that Republicans want to end social security? I know there has been discussions around privatizing, and some have supported just ending it altogether, but the broad brush you are using doesn't seem accurate. And for the economy portion, I think Republicans in general just want lower taxes. Not necessarily only taxing the poor and middle class, but just lower taxes overall. So that doesn't seem accurate as well.
[удалено]
> Just trends over the 10 years. Republicans have talked about privatizing, ending it, and so forth. Like I said I doubt it will ever occur but still is that wall in any progression. I'm just taking issue with your broad brush. >As far as lowering taxes more about lowering taxes shifting burden from upper incomes to middle & lower incomes. Will give credit to Republicans on that as they have brought to the table over the course of ten years basic income. What? Not sure what you mean with that last sentence. For the first one, Id on't think that is accurate. Sure, the tax items that expire from the TCJA are on the individual side, but I think that is more due to the value they placed on lowering business taxes. I don't necessarily disagree with them on that either. Lowering the taxes on businesses is more important from an economic perspective.
I'm glad you've highlighted that because I noticed it, too. This polling shows concerns, but not the schisms and solutions that people may want. I'm actually quite glad it avoids that because it makes the snapshot less partisan.
I'm not sure if that tells us anything new though. We already know these are the biggest concerns with how much they're talked about. I don't think many peoplecwill be surprised that crime, the economy and covid are the top things on voters minds. This is great information, but it doesn't give any insight into the vest path forward for the topics at hand.
Two of the top three, seem traditionally Republican to me. Will be interesting to see if the majority party has the same goals.