> "...why you would vote against your own collective interest ..."

> "...Most of the folks who vote aren't really the type to sit down and think long-term..."

Why do people call others dumb (and let's not kid ourselves, that's just what these phrases are a cultured, genteel way of saying) and then are surprised when said others don't vote for the causes they believe in?

Don't they realize that casting aspersions on the intelligence of others to their faces is "against their own collective interest"? If you want people to vote for your causes, work harder to prove that it benefits them instead of denigrating them.

I don't think you'll find many of those Amazon warehouse workers on this site. Also, it's not said with malice, so don't reach for a fight.

Most of these workers slave for long hours. And then they work another job on top of it. And then they wonder why they STILL aren't making enough to pay TODAY's bills. Their mindset is myopic because they live paycheck to paycheck. You tell them they're losing MORE money out of each paycheck, that suddenly makes them worry exponentially more.

I'm friends with people living this dilemma monthly. They don't have the luxury to think what the long-term return on investment is.

And to say they're under-educated isn't calling them dumb. The ones I know are high school dropouts/graduates only. High school doesn't teach you personal finance the way a finance course at a college might introduce you to it. It's just statistical correlation.

> Why do people call others dumb (and let's not kid ourselves, that's just what these phrases are a cultured, genteel way of saying) and then are surprised when said others don't vote for the causes they believe in?

How does calling people dumb affect the way they vote? In fact, if me and others calling people who vote against unionization dumb makes them more likely to vote against unionization, it clearly means that they are not primarily considering their self-interest, since whatever I and other leftists say or think is completely irrelevant.

If I say "you're an idiot for voting for Trump" and that makes you more likely to vote for Trump, then, I'm sorry to say, you proved my point.

If the vote is for union representation and the folks who will represent you have the attitude that “if you don’t agree with me you’re an idiot” how could they be trusted to represent your views? They will only ever represent their own interests.

2 + 2 = 4. If you don't agree with me then you are an idiot. Yes, union representatives look after their own self-interest. That's the point of unions! Their self-interest is getting reelected and they aren't reelected unless they look after the self-interests of the union members. What you are arguing for is that people should lie and obscure the fact that someone who denies that 2 + 2 = 4 is an idiot. I don't think people are such snowflakes.

Right up until that new raise puts you in the lowest tier of the next tax bracket so that you suddenly make less by making more.

That's not how marginal tax rates work, though- You get taxed higher on the amount above the threshold, not on the entire amount.

If you're below the poverty line, it's possible to make less by making more by disqualifying yourself for public aid.

But if the Amazon workers are in that situation then we would need to expand this conversation anyway.

Agreed. My comment regards income tax brackets, not public aid.

That’s not how tax brackets work. It is, unfortunately, how some welfare programs work. This results in benefits “cliffs” where you can lose thousands of dollars of welfare for earning a single additional dollar. If those welfare payments are how you keep a roof over your head, it’s pretty easy to get trapped right below the ceiling.

That said, you are unlikely to be eligible for these benefits at all if you are a full-time warehouse employee. They are aimed mostly at those in genuine poverty.

That’s a common misconception in 99% of cases, save for some welfare cliffs for really low earners. Tax brackets are graduated tiers, so not everything is taxed at the same rate.

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/071114/can-moving-h...

This never happens in the USA because this is not how tax brackets work. When you hit the next tax bracket, you only pay the higher rate on the income over the bracket threshold. Any income under it pays the lower bracket(s) rates.

That's not at all how our tax system works. Progressive tax brackets only tax you at the new rate on the money that you've made within that tax bracket. Getting into a higher tax bracket does not result in you making less money. Ever.

That's not how tax brackets work. You never make "less" when you make more money.

Your take home is what most people consider "making" even they know their actual salary is what they "make". I made a higher salary working in a state with state income taxes. Took a pay cut to move to a state without state income taxes. My take home went up (obviously). So I "made" more in take home by "making" less.

You changed what tax rules applied to you by moving, and thus your tax situation changed.

The point remains: under normal income circumstances (i.e. not related to welfare or equity), there is no way for you to get a raise in your real income and have your take home income decrease due to your federal income tax bracket.

And in this case your take home would go up 100% of the time you got a raise - only the raise amount itself would decrease proportionally to your increased income.