In this election cycle, Trump voters weren’t primarily motivated by the economy, they were motivated by immigration and culture issues.
I think we need to see more data on this one. I’d put forth the idea that in fact the underlying issues were in fact economic, and that the cultural and immigration issues were mostly just utilized by Trump as things to blame for the underlying economic woes.
The terminology here can be confusing. When progressives talk about the working class, typically they mean the poor. But the poor, in the bottom 30% of American families, are very different from Americans who are literally in the middle: the middle 50% of families whose median income was $64,000 in 2008. That is the true “middle class,” and they call themselves either “middle class” or “working class.”
“The thing that really gets me is that Democrats try to offer policies (paid sick leave! minimum wage!) that would help the working class,” a friend just wrote me. A few days’ paid leave ain’t gonna support a family. Neither is minimum wage. WWC men aren’t interested in working at McDonald’s for $15 per hour instead of $9.50. What they want is what my father-in-law had: steady, stable, full-time jobs that deliver a solid middle-class life to the 75% of Americans who don’t have a college degree. Trump promises that. I doubt he’ll deliver, but at least he understands what they need.
I thought this analysis was interesting.
I said that it shows that unemployed people aren’t likely to start a revolution or anything just because they’re unemployed.
Ah, I understand your point now. Sure, that’s true, but I’m imagining what happens if the lower-middle class gets squeezed out, as mentioned above. I need to go learn more about economic trends of the middle class in American history before I can make this case, though.
If you take a broad view then half of all things will increase x risk in the long run and half of them will decrease it.
Wait, I’m new to x-risk analysis and TDT… but is that true? Why would the distribution of the space of all possible actions split 50⁄50 towards increasing or decreasing x-risks? That doesn’t seem right. Am I missing something?
“The thing that really gets me is that Democrats try to offer policies (paid sick leave! minimum wage!) that would help the working class,” a friend just wrote me. A few days’ paid leave ain’t gonna support a family. Neither is minimum wage. WWC men aren’t interested in working at McDonald’s for $15 per hour instead of $9.50. What they want is what my father-in-law had: steady, stable, full-time jobs that deliver a solid middle-class life to the 75% of Americans who don’t have a college degree. Trump promises that. I doubt he’ll deliver, but at least he understands what they need.
@rowborg/@kbog, this is a great thread, and I’m only going to dip my toe in, here, minimally, to +1 this point that rowborg has made. Employment isn’t just about exchanging labour for a wage, it’s a major source of meaning in people’s lives. The assertion that standards of living in the US have risen is probably correct, even for people at the bottom of the income distribution. But this standard of living increase can’t explain the incredibly sour mood of a huge chunk of people. Obviously it’s going to take a lot of time for researchers to unpack that, but the meaningless-employment story seems like a pretty plausible component: if people feel what they do doesn’t have any meaning, and particularly if they feel their children don’t have prospects for meaning-ful employment then despair and anger seem like totally to-be-expected reactions.
I think we need to see more data on this one. I’d put forth the idea that in fact the underlying issues were in fact economic, and that the cultural and immigration issues were mostly just utilized by Trump as things to blame for the underlying economic woes.
I saw it based on data from exit polls. I don’t know where I saw it. If there is any other evidence, sure that would be neat to see. Though it is objectively the case that our underlying economic woes are smaller now than they were in 2012 and 2008.
Wait, I’m new to x-risk analysis and TDT… but is that true? Why would the distribution of the space of all possible actions split 50⁄50 towards increasing or decreasing x-risks? That doesn’t seem right. Am I missing something?
Well think about it this way, if the majority of political positions increased x-risk, we would make the world safer just by doing things in the opposite way all the time. But that’s absurd.
The more general point is that you can construct a complicated chain of reasoning for lots of things to increase x risk, so it’s not particularly interested just that something increases it. What matters is how much and how tractable it is.
Though it is objectively the case that our underlying economic woes are smaller now than they were in 2012 and 2008.
On aggregate, yes. I’m talking about the economic situation for a certain group, which is the lower-middle class. I don’t know that this is true for them. I’ll go try and dive in on this.
Well think about it this way, if the majority of political positions increased x-risk, we would make the world safer just by doing things in the opposite way all the time.
If I’ve parsed your meaning correctly, you are saying every action has a counterfactual non-action, and if you include not just the space of possible actions but the impact of non-action, then risks break 50/50? That makes more sense, but doesn’t really seem to be helpful in deciding between actions to take. The space of possible actions to take is what should concern us, yes?
Regardless, I take your larger point, which is that we should put efforts where you can maximize impact and you are skeptical on the effective value of this one as opposed to others. I would certainly need to be more quantitative in my analysis of this and back up my ideas/claims for sure.
The more general point is that you can construct a complicated chain of reasoning for lots of things to increase x risk, so it’s not particularly interested just that something increases it. What matters is how much and how tractable it is.
Totally agreed. I have yet to hear an argument that 1) invalidates my chain of reasoning or 2) indicates there are other inflection points along the chain that are better. Whether or not this compares well with other options for x-risk reduction is an exercise I have yet to perform (as I mentioned above).
I think we need to see more data on this one. I’d put forth the idea that in fact the underlying issues were in fact economic, and that the cultural and immigration issues were mostly just utilized by Trump as things to blame for the underlying economic woes.
Here’s an article I found instructive on the perspective and here’s a relevant passage:
I thought this analysis was interesting.
Ah, I understand your point now. Sure, that’s true, but I’m imagining what happens if the lower-middle class gets squeezed out, as mentioned above. I need to go learn more about economic trends of the middle class in American history before I can make this case, though.
Wait, I’m new to x-risk analysis and TDT… but is that true? Why would the distribution of the space of all possible actions split 50⁄50 towards increasing or decreasing x-risks? That doesn’t seem right. Am I missing something?
@rowborg/@kbog, this is a great thread, and I’m only going to dip my toe in, here, minimally, to +1 this point that rowborg has made. Employment isn’t just about exchanging labour for a wage, it’s a major source of meaning in people’s lives. The assertion that standards of living in the US have risen is probably correct, even for people at the bottom of the income distribution. But this standard of living increase can’t explain the incredibly sour mood of a huge chunk of people. Obviously it’s going to take a lot of time for researchers to unpack that, but the meaningless-employment story seems like a pretty plausible component: if people feel what they do doesn’t have any meaning, and particularly if they feel their children don’t have prospects for meaning-ful employment then despair and anger seem like totally to-be-expected reactions.
I saw it based on data from exit polls. I don’t know where I saw it. If there is any other evidence, sure that would be neat to see. Though it is objectively the case that our underlying economic woes are smaller now than they were in 2012 and 2008.
Well think about it this way, if the majority of political positions increased x-risk, we would make the world safer just by doing things in the opposite way all the time. But that’s absurd.
The more general point is that you can construct a complicated chain of reasoning for lots of things to increase x risk, so it’s not particularly interested just that something increases it. What matters is how much and how tractable it is.
On aggregate, yes. I’m talking about the economic situation for a certain group, which is the lower-middle class. I don’t know that this is true for them. I’ll go try and dive in on this.
If I’ve parsed your meaning correctly, you are saying every action has a counterfactual non-action, and if you include not just the space of possible actions but the impact of non-action, then risks break 50/50? That makes more sense, but doesn’t really seem to be helpful in deciding between actions to take. The space of possible actions to take is what should concern us, yes?
Regardless, I take your larger point, which is that we should put efforts where you can maximize impact and you are skeptical on the effective value of this one as opposed to others. I would certainly need to be more quantitative in my analysis of this and back up my ideas/claims for sure.
Totally agreed. I have yet to hear an argument that 1) invalidates my chain of reasoning or 2) indicates there are other inflection points along the chain that are better. Whether or not this compares well with other options for x-risk reduction is an exercise I have yet to perform (as I mentioned above).
Thanks for this!