Zaktor

u/Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
30 posts · 5.1k comments

Recent posts

Recent comments

Literally this entire conversation you haven't even tried to address the instigating criticism of the article both using the wrong-headed definition of class as education and that their statistics are filtered to create a Republican bias unrelated to class. It talks about class being a fuzzy term and other races existing, but when it tries to demonstrate the problem it's just white women and the non-college educated "class". All while relaying absurd quotes about how they like people that talk to them directly and are successful through their own hard work like Trump.

And while people do have kind of a fuzzy definition of working class, that definition isn't education. Most people identify as "working class" and fewer than 1% of respondents defined it by education. Media and think-tanks that have latched onto "non-college educated = working class" do so intentionally. They want it to represent a dwindling thing from when boomers worked hard and didn't complain, not anything to do with labor and capital.

I never said it did. I said the article and it's hard metrics all exclude working class people to paint a picture of a conservative working class. The point is we don't know, from this article, that Democrats have lost ground with the working class, because whenever numbers are involved they choose measures that don't actually measure the working class and specifically intertwine them with aspects that are more conservative.

Even your final line implicitly associates education with class, when it couldn't be further from the truth for a lot of people today. Do you think college educated baristas don't think they're working class? And that's even by the income-based measure intended to put a "middle-class" buffer to protect from any sort of worker vs. capital framing.

In a class sense, those who must work to support their continued safety and health. If you'll spend most of your life at the whiims of a boss because you have to, you're working class.

In the perverted income-based American form, it's usually used as a euphemism for "lower-middle" that at least has some inklings of class involved. Even there it's very much not "non-college educated". Jim Bob who owns 4 car dealerships is not college educated.

Working class is not "doesn't have a bachelor's degree". Using that measure with two decades between is biasing it toward older people. Twenty years ago, the number of 30 year olds without a college degree was much higher than it is today. And many of those young college graduates are working paycheck to paycheck at the mercy of their employer.

The conflation of education with class and use of measures that amplify non-class related correlations with conservativism feels kind of sloppy when trying to highlight women being forgotten in the idea space of "working class". The same thing continues when the measure of choice is later "white working class women".

I'm not saying we shouldn't be trying to win those voters, but starting out with "working class" and then relying on statistics that have major non-class correlations seems like it's playing into the exact same issues as pretending "working class" means men does.

"All of this is accomplished without the wasteful practice of placing polling sites directly across the street from one another,” he said, as reported by ABC News.

Uh, hey ABC, how many of those 92 were across from another polling station? Seems like something you should ask before you relay that statement into print.

But think of how much better your life will be when the modest costs of primary care are taken away. Sure, you'll still go bankrupt when that primary care finds something and refers you to specialized treatment, but before that you'll be saving upwards of $150 a year. Or probably more like $25 if you have insurance, because they're sure not going to reduce premiums to make up the difference.