by the way the best "material conditions" explanation for Trump is the one that literally no one wants to touch: young people and people of color got much wealthier under Biden and quickly adopted post-material fascist politics as a result
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
I don't know if this is the case for the overall youth/minority demographic, but there's tons of proof this was the case with Latino voters in Miami and other places at least
It doesn’t help that civics education in this country (based on discussions with public school teachers + students who come up through those schools) seems to be in a pretty abysmal state
or... people didn't like the dramatic worsening of material conditions from ~2021 to ~2023. it's just wild to me that the data is pretty clear that this is what happened but so many, including you, are so resistant to the facts of the matter.
based on the college education split I think it's probably a combination of economic relief and the anti-intellectual movement (which really isn't strictly material-conditions but the rising cost of college plays into it)
I think the big problem here for the left is that they bought into the right’s axiom that personal wealth > community wealth. Yes, individually young ppl and ppl of color got wealthier but I’d guess as that happened things like public schools, medical services, etc got more expensive. These—
With polling indicating that most people felt that their situation was ok but felt that others were not, what role do you think the rollback of COVID era social welfare programs played?
I think young middle class personal finances improved during Biden, but their perception of the baseline lifestyle they’re *entitled to expect* (luxury brands, the so-called convenience economy, the concerts/travel/experience economy) has *exploded* over the last decade due to social med/influencers
This feels correct, which is why I'm worried about endorsing it. But I wouldn't be surprised if people feel entitled to luxuries (DoorDash, Uber, multiple subscription services) when they're absurdly priced for a normal salary.
We had low interest rates for 15 years and venture capitalists and PE investors used frothy amounts of liquidity to hook us on lifestyle crap and services — and we bit big time.
I do feel like none of these services were actually cheaper, but I don't have a great base to compare it too (my weird spending habits are not a data point). The investor to personal payment trap probably hit people pretty hard, though.
For an anchoring perspective, 180k is, roughly, mid-senior software engineer. 500k is probably around two promotion levels up from that. (lower in finance, but...)
Actually, I should elaborate on the implications here: Someone a little more talented and driven than me can achieve that first one with 5 or 6 years of experience. The second one there is going to require at least 10-15 just based on job descriptions.
Sure, but in either case, the threshold for being financially secure or even successful is likely well below what a senior software engineer would make. I think that’s part of the problem— you can do very well on half that amount, but very well doesn’t mean 4 international trips every year!
One thing I notice is a lot of people in their early 20s complaining they can’t afford a house, and like… that was always the case for people that young. Housing is in a bad place but also people just entering the job market we’re never buying houses!
Yeah we bought our first house when I was nearly 35. A 2BR 900 sq ft bungalow in a very boring part of Pittsburgh. It was right before the housing crash so housing prices were inflated af. Would have been impossible without our FHA loan.
I agree 100% and am so confused that more people aren't saying it. Dovetails with young people thinking that half a million per year is a reasonable income!
The start of this shift began before Covid, it was fed by stimulus, and it hasn’t slowed. So people are better off today in real terms than they were in 2019– but the gap between the luxury they feel is “normal” to expect vs what they have is actually growing, and that breeds reactionary politics
The reaction to this post from the online left would be “we literally just want healthcare.”
And I would say that Trump won because voters like this dude in Miami literally do not *just want healthcare* (which he probably has, he’s been playing the market!), he wants a G wagon.
Note he wasn’t living with his parents under Biden, but he now realizes he can’t afford the things he thinks he needs unless he does that. And this guy’s had money to invest!
this one actually fits the evidence pretty closely but the implications are dire for a lot of left-of-center ideas so I'm not aware of a single person who has even raised the possibility
I did posit that some forward progress on race issues lowered the temperature of those issues and made young male voters of color more susceptible to the trends affecting other young people.
It's easier to buy off men of color than women of color because men of color have the "at least you can rule over women" bribe held out to them by white men
Someone has mentioned that wealth makes these authoritarian policies possible. If we were poor, we’d just vote Democrat, the party that tries to improve our material conditions.
there was a W bush ero quote, maybe from Rove, that the goal of their policies was to make as many homeowners as possible because homeowners become republicans.
same for union voters: if you have a good job and healthcare and you don't fear losing those things you can decide to be fascist if u want
“The bourgeois will side with fascism” idea is 100 years old, and plenty of people raise the point constantly. (You call them stupid.)
But to your point, which is false, “young people and people of color” didn’t get “much wealthier;” they’re significantly behind trend and the wealth gap widened.
By wealth do you mean vibes wealth (and a few highly visible outliers on social like BTC maxis and influencers) or actual bank account balances making them truly post-material? I struggle to reconcile the latter with crosstabs of levels of consumer debt, inflation in that same period, etc
People tend to take on more debt when they have more resources or feel confident in their future income. Debt is costly for the poor, but profitable for the well off. It's not a good indicator of economic struggle. Inflation is also a poor indicator, it could be caused by increasing wages themselves
Comments
Though I do agree no one wants to give Biden this credit, on either side.
And I would say that Trump won because voters like this dude in Miami literally do not *just want healthcare* (which he probably has, he’s been playing the market!), he wants a G wagon.
http://exiledonline.com/we-the-spiteful/
To me that was the death knell for the deliverism theory of politics.
same for union voters: if you have a good job and healthcare and you don't fear losing those things you can decide to be fascist if u want
But to your point, which is false, “young people and people of color” didn’t get “much wealthier;” they’re significantly behind trend and the wealth gap widened.
the evidence: nonexistent
More consumer debt would tend to suggest that people aren’t “post-material” because they need external financing even for current consumption.
Inflation while slower than wage gains under Biden would also just make it harder to be “post-material”.