This viewpoint (where the unstated understanding is 'the group that is good is Democrats, and the group that is evil is Republicans') is part of the problem.

The world is more complicated than that.

The viewpoint that both groups are just as bad or just as good for wage earners is a problem.

It’s easily verifiable that Democratic states have better laws for wage earners, and have pushed for policies that benefit wage earners. They’re nowhere near perfect, but there’s no reason to pretend Dems and Repubs are the same.

Even if people agree with you on that, people care about more things than benefiting wage earners. Gun rights are a big deal for a large number of people. Abortion is a big issue for many people, as is immigration policy. Saying that, "One side is better on the things I value!" is startlingly blind to the fact that a whole lot of people don't value what you do, or value things in the same order.

I could just as easily turn it around and say, "It's easily verifiable that Republican states have better laws for gun owners." Now do you see the issue? Your above statement matters only if your primary goal is benefiting wage earners. It would be like me saying that Republicans are better at building a border wall. Maybe so, but that's not top priority for Democrats.

I agree with you. That was my whole purpose of replying to the person that said they are tired of “red/blue” shit. The political situation is not just colors, it has real life consequences on the allocation of society’s resources. If I want my daughter to be able to take maternity leave to properly breastfeed her children, it would behoove me to support a specific party. And the other party wants to spend resources on other things.

There are a lot of single issue voters out there who will happily vote for someone who promises to screw them over financially as long as they are for their pet issue.

More recently, we are seeing the rise of the Zero Issue Voters who don’t care about any particular issue at all. It’s purely a team sport. They love their team, love their candidates and they just want to “own the other side”.

Republican states tend to emphasize having a good labor market, and prioritize whatever gets employers to offer more jobs. This is a positive good for wage-earners. Democratic states tend to emphasize using government laws to require employers to do things like pay a higher wage. This is also a positive good for wage-earners. They both get lots of votes from wage-earners, and the ones voting for Republicans are not ignorant or blind. They are suspicious (rightly or wrongly) of the effectiveness of government regulations to help them, and know from experience that a tight labor market makes their boss suddenly see the importance of treating their workers better compared to when there was a line of people waiting to take their job if they didn't like it.

The difference between the two is mostly how they think it best to go about improving things for wage earners, who are the vast majority of their voters in both states. Not saying this makes them equal, but the difference is not what you assert.

> It’s easily verifiable that Democratic states have better laws for wage earners, and have pushed for policies that benefit wage earners.

The most solidly blue state, California, just enshrined a law to screw over gig workers and has among the worst housing crises in the country for average (and below) wage earners. Both parties are not equally bad, but the idea that the Democrats support working people is pretty laughable at this point. Yes, they’re not as awful as Republicans on these issues, but that’s a pretty low bar and still so far below the wage and labor protections in places like Europe as to be laughable.

The Democratic Party was against Propositions 22 and 13. You can blame both on underinformed voters.

The Democratic Party in California is quite cozy and takes a lot of money from the people who wrote it, so I find this claim of opposition unconvincing.

They wrote and passed the law that Proposition 22 modified.

And did nothing meaningful to oppose it being modified, beside saying they opposed it.

This has been Democrats tactics with this stuff for decades, “we tried to do something good, but then something happened that we couldn’t do anything about it. Sorry.” It’s intentional fecklessness, while posturing at progress, so they can keep getting checks from the tech industry.

They were outspent by almost $200 million. What exactly were you hoping they would do? Why did they go out of their way to write a law when the courts had already reclassified workers? Your conspiracy theory does not make any sense.

https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_22,_App-Based...

Uber and several other gig companies have been operating in violation of California law for about a decade. The state could have shut them down at any time for any myriad number of reasons, but instead got friendly with them and took piles upon piles of their money. This isn't about spending money on any given proposition, but about systemic corruption in the Democratic party, where they'll sell out working people for campaign donations and c-suite positions when they leave office.

> Uber and several other gig companies have been operating in violation of California law for about a decade.

No, they were operating in violation of California law for less than a year.

> instead got friendly with them and took piles upon piles of their money.

If that's the case, why didn't they get a carve out in AB5?

> systemic corruption in the Democratic party,

Which overwhelmingly voted for AB5 and was in opposition to Proposition 22. You are alleging corruption without any evidence.

Perhaps then they ought to be alleged for incompetence; that we could all agree with.

How? I keep asking what they should have done, and I keep getting no answer.

Not take money from companies that were in violation of California law from their outset (running illegal taxi services), not take jobs with the companies when they left office (several former, high-level Obama people work at Uber, Kamala Harris’ brother-in-law is behind Prop 22’s legal team), pursued anti-monopoly action against Uber for engaging in market dumping. The list goes on and on.

I fail to understand why you see this whole situation as what happened with one law and one proposition and not the culmination of a bunch of corrupt people who have been in bed with each other for some time.

> Not take money from companies that were in violation of California law from their outset (running illegal taxi services)

What state law were they violating? None. What difference would not taking money from them have done? None.

> not take jobs with the companies when they left office (several former, high-level Obama people work at Uber, Kamala Harris’ brother-in-law is behind Prop 22’s legal team),

What does that have to do with the state legislators, who created AB5?

> pursued anti-monopoly action against Uber for engaging in market dumping.

Uber was not a monopoly and still isn't a monopoly, as a court already confirmed. https://lawstreetmedia.com/tech/court-rules-that-uber-must-f...

> The list goes on and on.

No item in that list makes any sense. Why did they go through all the trouble to pass AB5 to begin with?

I also support ranked choice voting to break the duopolies between Democrat and Republican, but as you said, there is a difference between the two, which is what we have to deal with while we have first past the post voting.

But it’s also easily verifiable that there are many wage earners in both parties, meaning many who don’t agree with your standards for which policies are better.

That's not necessarily true, because for many people there are issues more important to them than where a candidate stands on issues related to wage earning.

For example, there are many people who in a race where one candidate favors restricting or ending abortion and the other favors reducing restrictions on abortion will choose whichever of the two agrees with their position on abortion, regardless of where the two candidates stand on anything else such as economic issues or foreign policy issues.

both sides push for higher immigration and a globalized market, which have more effect on wage-earners in the US than any policy in "Democratic states". Imo you are missing the forest thru the trees, at scale they really are the same.

The evidence is that immigrants generate positive net tax benefits. The amount of immigrants who are founders of successful business would reflect that the impact is net positive.

AFAIK the idea of immigrants impact being a net negative isn't supported by the studies I have read.

I understand this isn't necessarily in line with the rhetoric du jour.

> The evidence is that immigrants generate positive net tax benefits.

Immigrants as a whole being a net positive might be clear, but the demographics most commonly under debate are things like "refugees" or "illegal immigrants" or "people seeking asylum at the US-Mexico border". Now, it's possible that those groups are still a (financial) net positive, but I'd be a lot less confident in that than "doctors" or "people with a degree".

This also doesn't really address the issue of "what impact does immigration have on US wage earners". An immigrant doctor or programmer might be clearly beneficial financially and to the country as a whole, but the doctors and programmers they're competing with might not be quite so happy. And while those demographics can "take it" so to speak, unskilled laborers facing the same competition are in a bit tougher of a spot.

I never said or implied a NET negative. My comment was specifically talking about effects on wage earners in the US.

I have no idea if this actually means anything, but I did a couple amusing calculations. If the number of Electoral College votes each state got were proportional to that state's cumulative per capita COVID infection rates, the result would have been 329 Trump, 209 Biden.

However, if we go by cumulative per capita COVID deaths, then the result would have been 228 Trump, 310 Biden.

Why the big swing? I think it is because the big early outbreaks that swept through retirement and nursing homes before we got better at treating it were in big urban areas. By the time it got big in rural areas, we'd gotten a lot better at dealing with it.

It would be interesting to do a similar calculation, but using say the rates over say the last three months instead of cumulative from the start. If someone wants to do that one, a good place to get the COVID data is here [1]. They have links to download the data for all the graphs as CSV files.

[1] http://91-divoc.com/pages/covid-visualization/

> By the time it got big in rural areas, we'd gotten a lot better at dealing with it.

Or by the time it hit rural areas, we'd also gotten better at testing for it. Perhaps the IFR is the same across both demographics, but better testing means a higher proportion of cases were detected later in the pandemic.

I grabbed the data again, and this time used the changes in cumulative cases and deaths over the last 60 days, per capita, in each state for doing the EV reallocation.

Using cases, it comes out 344 Trump, 194 Biden. Using deaths, it comes out 354 Trump, 184 Biden.

The big difference this time is largely rural states that are getting hit much harder than the rest of the states. North Dakota in this allocation gets 35 cases EV and 46 deaths EV, and South Dakota gets 30 and 36. Montana get 21 and 23.

For comparison to some high population states, California is 4 and 4, New York 4 and 3, Texas 8 and 10, Florida 6 and 10.

Now I'd be curious to see something that looks at various sliding windows on the data and sees how to allocations change, but that would be a bit more elaborate than I want to do.

The guy above you edited his comment.

join https://classunity.org

If that's your stance then evidently you don't understand why the other "side" even exists.

It exists mostly because of massive propaganda financed by very wealthy people for whom it is essential to indoctrinate masses to be even more wealthy and powerful.

I don’t understand how it’s propaganda when one can analyze labors laws in various jurisdictions and see that all the areas with labor laws better for workers and poorer people are mostly in areas governed by Democrats.

I obviously didn't mean the side that supports labor laws better for workers.

Thats the whole point, the propaganda is also disinformation and making other issues seem a lot more decisive and important than what really affects the people. The propaganda makes them vote against their interests

Not clear why you are being downvoted. Oligarch Rebekah Mercer has funded/sponsored Breitbart, Steve Bannon, Donald Trump, Parler and more. When their sock puppets get out of line--they lose their funding. See Steve Bannon, who now is in the pocket of a rogue Chinese Billionaire. There are many more like her and her father.

We can disagree without sworn enemies.

That's a class thing, not a culture war thing, and I bet you'll find many the stereotypical redneck that would also be in support of better working laws, because the stereotypical redneck is also poor and working shit jobs. The thing is they also have strong opinions on guns or abortion or whatever else social issues and this all-or-nothing attitude in politics means they have to align themselves with whatever group they perceive will abuse them less

You could also ask why California has the worst-maintained roads in the United States, has mountains of trash littering the center divide and shoulders of its freeways, has huge numbers of homeless people living in slums just blocks away from some of the highest wage earners (and ostensibly highest tax payers) in the country. How does California vote? That’s not “red/blue” shit.

See, I can play this game too.

I agree. Maybe it’s because of various SC rulings making involuntary committal to mental health institutions impossible, and the temperate weather that allows people to exist without homes more comfortably than other places. Maybe it’s other policies, or economic forces. But as you point out, there are real world affects of supporting different political parties.

Consider that your political opponents may also want to achieve the same goals but may have a radically different and less direct method of doing it. Then you might understand that you have something in common with them, and find a way to have civil disagreement instead of othering them.

Thank you for demonstrating the phenomenon so well.

No offense, but neither the 2 major parties in the US are left/workers rights. I don't see any candidate running on the "improve quality of life for wage earners" platform. for example Joe "nothing with fundamentally change" Biden...and well the last 4 years.

Can't believe you're being downvoted for this, it appears to be an objective truth. Both major American parties would be considered (at the very least) conservative in most other countries. Instead, we're guaranteed, year after year, to be one of the handful of countries without single-payer healthcare, a living minimum wage, mandatory vacation... you get the point. That's without considering that certain American policies affect non-Americans (ie record numbers of drone bombings and caged children will continue regardless of whose smiling face is on television). There are workers' parties in the United States, but they are conveniently relegated to minor/rump status.

See the list of states with parental leave:

https://www.patriotsoftware.com/blog/payroll/states-with-pai...

Similarly, see the list of states (and cities) with half decent unemployment benefits, minimum wage laws, non tipped wages, sick leave, required meal breaks, non compete bans, Medicaid, marijuana legalization, etc.

You will see a trend in which parties’ governance wage earners have these benefits (which are a pittance compared to civilized countries in the first place) and which don’t.

While being a very Republican state, Oklahoma has a pretty long history of some very progressive programs. For example, Oklahoma funds pre-K programs for children:

https://hechingerreport.org/why-oklahomas-public-preschools-...

That’s great, but unfortunately, it’s an exception. Again, my comment wasn’t to imply that one party is perfect, but to show that the policies they push make a real difference in people’s lives, especially lower income earners.

That's what people missed about Trump's supporters in 2016. People genuinely believed he was going to work for the common man. He talked about workers rights (in a xenophobic sort of way, but still) he talked about increasing pay for blue collar workers, and about restoring the lost legacy to places that have been abandoned by globalization.

That never got talked about by Trump detractors. Union working class Joe-Schmoe's used to vote democrat, and now solidly do not. There's a reason for that.

Edit: Please note that I never said he did those things, just that they were what he promised. He is completely full of crap on almost everything he says, those promises at the top of the pile. But that is the reason working class Joe love him. He says the things they want to hear.

Well of course. A man who lives in a literal gold covered Condo, with a history of not paying his subcontractors, vendors and who hired undocumented workers, was certainly going to stick up for the working man.

He said the needed lines, gave them a villain in immigrants (stealing yur jerbs) and then did nothing of the sort for WORKERS. He certainly did go all in on cracking down on immigration, of non-white people, as that matched the narratives of Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller.

Meanwhile, Oligarchs here are richer than ever, and workers are holding on for dear life. And 72 million plus, voted to keep him in office.

> Union working class Joe-Schmoe's used to vote democrat, and now solidly do not.

I don't think that matches exit polls—lower wage workers still voted primarily democrat, and higher wage workers voted primarily republican: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/11/03/us/elections/...

Talk is cheap. For whatever reason, the increased pay and benefits for blue collar workers exists, by far, in Democrat areas, and is implemented by Democrat politicians.

Talk is cheap, voting is not. How do you explain blue collar workers voting red?

Some combination of temporarily embarrassed millionaires and tribalism. They may think of themselves as future rich people who can benefit from cheaper labor, and they may be step above the lowest on the socioeconomic ladder, and so want to maintain that hierarchy. As President Lyndon Johnson said:

"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."

Talk is cheap, but lies win elections, especially when supported by a massive media machine designed to mislead voters.

The output of Fox is bad enough, but the QAnon nonsense isn't some weird aberration that appeared out of nothing. It's the logical conclusion of a huge social experiment to see how much political benefit you can wring from an industrial lie machine.

And it's working far better than anyone on the left was expecting it to.

The downside is that the US now has a huge voter demographic that is literally disconnected from reality. These are the people who scream that Covid isn't real - because something something George Soros and Bill Gates - while they're in hospital dying of it.

This doesn't end well. You can't push a large percentage of your population into delusion without some very destructive consequences. Even if it does mean you keep your Senate seat.

>This doesn't end well. You can't push a large percentage of your population into delusion without some very destructive consequences. Even if it does mean you keep your Senate seat.

I would argue that, for the individuals in question, the long-term consequences literally have no meaning, do not matter, and absolutely are not part of the calculus.

If I get power during my life, and secure my legacy as an important, and very wealthy person, my children can buy away any problem that may pop up for them.

Therefore, my actions of destruction today do not matter, as long as I am the one in power.

This is why I believe it is only going to keep getting worse; if the incentive is to stay in power, at all costs, we're in for a wild ride.

You're perfectly demonstrating what's being discussed in this article.

Not sure why you're downvoted, because that sort of populism is exactly what Trump said and ran on. Like most things he said, it's also still 2 weeks away.

I think the saddest part about Trump's presidency is that he ran as an economic populist, but governed as a supply-sider Republican.

I don’t see why anyone who is familiar with Trump’s history would expect anything different.

See, you are part of the problem.

So you picked your political allegiance based on the party that most aligns to the criteria that are important to you. That's far from universal and other people have different criteria that are important to them.

Yea, but the point is it’s not color A versus color B. It’s “I pick my political allegiance based on the party that will most likely help those at the bottom of the totem pole” versus “not doing that”.

All of my fellow republican business owners were bristling at the idea of Obama’s executive order increasing the minimum salary for exempt workers. This is because they would have had to pay their immigrant workers $44k per year for 60+ hour work weeks who they designated as “managers”, rather than $30k per year under current rules.

Again, I’m not saying Democrats are perfect, and they are far from it. But at least some Democrat states, and politicians are making an effort, whereas I can’t say the same about Repubs. Hence, it’s not just color A vs color B.