The problem is that class interest will ultimately win out over identity interest. It's why Latinos, younger African American men and recent immigrants are shifting right populist. Hell, immigration as an issue has shifted the Overton Window to the Right across Europe, including right-wing hotbeds of malcontent like Sweden, Ireland and the Netherlands.
The reason why Trump chose the blue collar class to rhetorically champion was because they are the constituency most ignored by their political representatives. Have you watched or read Batya Ungar_Sargon? She's very good.
How is voting for the party of tax cuts for billionaires in the class interest of working stiffs? It’s not. The fact is that there is no American party that serves the economic interests of working people. Given this fact they might as well vote on identity. Those who are not black and see themselves as “American” are “white” and tend to vote GOP. Latinos today, like Italians a century ago, are tomorrow’s white people. Some of them are beginning the transition.
I agree with your first point- and it shows in the midterm data. Voters are far less enthused about voting for the GOP, with their Koch Brothers mentality. Here’s the thing- although we disagree on the role migrant workers pay in depressing wages and labour participation, voters are more likely to disagree with you than me.
Back in the early nineties, only 3% of Brits were concerned with immigration levels- now that the levels have become unprecedented it’s 56%, yet the legacy media maintains it’s a far right position.
Here’s the thing- most people know someone who has had their wages cut in half, with the employer waiting the mandatory twelve week period before resuming work on the construction site. Everybody knows a handyman or housepainter who should be earning £20 to £25 an hour, yet is forced by foreign labour competition to keep their wages at £13 a hour, when running a van and insuring it come off the top.
The Trump remain in Mexico while asylum application was sheer genius (despite being somewhat heartless) as was denying roughly 600K green cards, specifically in areas related to better paid blue collar work.
By comparison, the Australian approach is the standout success in a sea of dismal failures marking the decline of the West. They have almost no innovation to speak of, yet their living standards are likely to exceed those of Americans by 2050. When it comes to social safety nets provided in the context of all taxation as a percentage of GDP they’ve already succeeded- lower than any other Western OECD country or any country in Europe.
Their rate of foreign-born citizens is more than twice that of all the Western countries which have experienced an Overton Window shift to the anti-immigration Right. How did this happen? Until the 2000s blue collar protections were literally enshrined in their immigration law.
Sure, they have a One Nation party and populism, but one has to remember that it’s against a background of a foreign-born citizenship rate which is more than twice as high as all four times America experienced a 14% rate, saw the emergence of populism and conventional politicians shutdown immigration to prevent the demagogues getting elected.
In Europe (other than the UK), the percentage threshold rates seems to be considerably lower…
You talked about my first point, that working people are not enthused about either party since their economy programs do not benefit them. You apparently thought my second point was about immigration. I didn't say anything about that.
I am not sure what you are referring to by Australia. It looks to be pretty lily white to me, abut 87%, like the US sixty years ago. That was the America that passed the 1965 expansion of immigration.
Not all foreign born are the same. Those who come from countries with high fertility are more likely to be harder to assimilate into a high-income country.
Oh my God! Thank you! For years I've used the talking point of Australian foreign-born citizenship being above 30% for an argument about the merits of selective migration. I (and the informed sources I use) was looking purely at culture.
It's part of the Brexit phenomenon. Although I was a Remainer (having worked in manufacturing and understanding the importance of frictionless trade for supply chains), one thing which did disgust me was the way in which racism as a topic was extracted from a movement against mass migration, when most of the mass migration came from Eastern Europeans, a group which most Brits have always held in high regard, and the better informed tend to feel a sense of guilt over the shocking betrayal at the end of WW2.
I've been arguing the Australian immigration system with liberal professors and highly educated Leftists for years and not once has anyone pushed back on the actual breakdown of the foreign-born citizenship. Good spot! This does cast the strength of the Australian experiment in a somewhat different light. The culture vs. race argument still applies, because historically there has been some pushback against Greek and Portuguese in the UK due to saturation of specific locales and local industries, but what I didn't consider was the common language effect- if you've travelled and are somewhat socially gregarious then you will have noticed that White people from Anglophone countries are generally warmer towards minority ethnic people from other Anglophone countries than they are towards White Europeans (regardless of nationality in most instances- everybody likes the Irish).
I also think Islam is a separate and hot-button issue. Generally Muslims in America are more liberal and more likely to integrate. I was also thinking last night in bed that one revision which needs to happen in the later stages of K-12 or its equivalents is education about the availability bias and deeply flawed availability heuristics. The establishment is far too PC to even consider the idea, but it would be a pretty good way of introducing kids to a module on statistical Maths and a great way of killing off outgroup hostility.
What I don't get is why Americans consider Latinos non-Europeans, especially given that indigenous ancestry tends to be highly concentrated, with the exception of a few high altitude communities where integration was a matter of necessity (Spanish women had problems carrying babies to term).
On the issue of high fertility, although you are correct, the high fertility isn't the correlation which is decisive- it's ingroup. People further up the SES spectrum tend to self-select into communities by income and educational level (the latter of which correlates with openness to new experience). And it's not pure economics. Even when economics is not a factor, migrants who weren't part of the upper stratum within their country of origin tend to want to self-segregate into culturally homogenous communities. The effect can be semi-permanent when religion is a factor.
The problem is that class interest will ultimately win out over identity interest. It's why Latinos, younger African American men and recent immigrants are shifting right populist. Hell, immigration as an issue has shifted the Overton Window to the Right across Europe, including right-wing hotbeds of malcontent like Sweden, Ireland and the Netherlands.
The reason why Trump chose the blue collar class to rhetorically champion was because they are the constituency most ignored by their political representatives. Have you watched or read Batya Ungar_Sargon? She's very good.
How is voting for the party of tax cuts for billionaires in the class interest of working stiffs? It’s not. The fact is that there is no American party that serves the economic interests of working people. Given this fact they might as well vote on identity. Those who are not black and see themselves as “American” are “white” and tend to vote GOP. Latinos today, like Italians a century ago, are tomorrow’s white people. Some of them are beginning the transition.
I agree with your first point- and it shows in the midterm data. Voters are far less enthused about voting for the GOP, with their Koch Brothers mentality. Here’s the thing- although we disagree on the role migrant workers pay in depressing wages and labour participation, voters are more likely to disagree with you than me.
Back in the early nineties, only 3% of Brits were concerned with immigration levels- now that the levels have become unprecedented it’s 56%, yet the legacy media maintains it’s a far right position.
Here’s the thing- most people know someone who has had their wages cut in half, with the employer waiting the mandatory twelve week period before resuming work on the construction site. Everybody knows a handyman or housepainter who should be earning £20 to £25 an hour, yet is forced by foreign labour competition to keep their wages at £13 a hour, when running a van and insuring it come off the top.
The Trump remain in Mexico while asylum application was sheer genius (despite being somewhat heartless) as was denying roughly 600K green cards, specifically in areas related to better paid blue collar work.
By comparison, the Australian approach is the standout success in a sea of dismal failures marking the decline of the West. They have almost no innovation to speak of, yet their living standards are likely to exceed those of Americans by 2050. When it comes to social safety nets provided in the context of all taxation as a percentage of GDP they’ve already succeeded- lower than any other Western OECD country or any country in Europe.
Their rate of foreign-born citizens is more than twice that of all the Western countries which have experienced an Overton Window shift to the anti-immigration Right. How did this happen? Until the 2000s blue collar protections were literally enshrined in their immigration law.
Sure, they have a One Nation party and populism, but one has to remember that it’s against a background of a foreign-born citizenship rate which is more than twice as high as all four times America experienced a 14% rate, saw the emergence of populism and conventional politicians shutdown immigration to prevent the demagogues getting elected.
In Europe (other than the UK), the percentage threshold rates seems to be considerably lower…
You talked about my first point, that working people are not enthused about either party since their economy programs do not benefit them. You apparently thought my second point was about immigration. I didn't say anything about that.
I am not sure what you are referring to by Australia. It looks to be pretty lily white to me, abut 87%, like the US sixty years ago. That was the America that passed the 1965 expansion of immigration.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Australia
Not all foreign born are the same. Those who come from countries with high fertility are more likely to be harder to assimilate into a high-income country.
Oh my God! Thank you! For years I've used the talking point of Australian foreign-born citizenship being above 30% for an argument about the merits of selective migration. I (and the informed sources I use) was looking purely at culture.
It's part of the Brexit phenomenon. Although I was a Remainer (having worked in manufacturing and understanding the importance of frictionless trade for supply chains), one thing which did disgust me was the way in which racism as a topic was extracted from a movement against mass migration, when most of the mass migration came from Eastern Europeans, a group which most Brits have always held in high regard, and the better informed tend to feel a sense of guilt over the shocking betrayal at the end of WW2.
I've been arguing the Australian immigration system with liberal professors and highly educated Leftists for years and not once has anyone pushed back on the actual breakdown of the foreign-born citizenship. Good spot! This does cast the strength of the Australian experiment in a somewhat different light. The culture vs. race argument still applies, because historically there has been some pushback against Greek and Portuguese in the UK due to saturation of specific locales and local industries, but what I didn't consider was the common language effect- if you've travelled and are somewhat socially gregarious then you will have noticed that White people from Anglophone countries are generally warmer towards minority ethnic people from other Anglophone countries than they are towards White Europeans (regardless of nationality in most instances- everybody likes the Irish).
I also think Islam is a separate and hot-button issue. Generally Muslims in America are more liberal and more likely to integrate. I was also thinking last night in bed that one revision which needs to happen in the later stages of K-12 or its equivalents is education about the availability bias and deeply flawed availability heuristics. The establishment is far too PC to even consider the idea, but it would be a pretty good way of introducing kids to a module on statistical Maths and a great way of killing off outgroup hostility.
What I don't get is why Americans consider Latinos non-Europeans, especially given that indigenous ancestry tends to be highly concentrated, with the exception of a few high altitude communities where integration was a matter of necessity (Spanish women had problems carrying babies to term).
On the issue of high fertility, although you are correct, the high fertility isn't the correlation which is decisive- it's ingroup. People further up the SES spectrum tend to self-select into communities by income and educational level (the latter of which correlates with openness to new experience). And it's not pure economics. Even when economics is not a factor, migrants who weren't part of the upper stratum within their country of origin tend to want to self-segregate into culturally homogenous communities. The effect can be semi-permanent when religion is a factor.