The left/liberal shibboleth that lower-income people vote against their own interests is one of the most subtly arrogant and condescending phrases in politics. “Those proles don’t know what’s good for them; they should listen to their betters.”
Disdain is not a strategy. Eventually those people will tell you to get stuffed.
I think it’s time to put the tired old simplistic left-right division, which assumes economic and social preferences align, out of its misery. There may have been a time when social classes neatly sorted into these binary dimensions, with the position in one strongly predicting the position in the other, but that us no longer the case. Even the fondness of authoritarianism, long associated with the extreme right is no longer that exclusive.
That disconnect is deftly exploited by “right-wing” populists who marry old left-wing redistribution policies with old right-wing socially conservative anti-woke rhetoric.
If you assume the Econ 101 theory of immigration suppressing wages is true then why do high skill workers support high skill immigration? Shouldn't the working class also support high skill immigration because it might reduce inequality?
That's a good question. Highly educated voters are actually found to support high-skilled migration more than low-income voters (https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/01/22/appendix-b-detailed-demographic-tables-high-skilled-immigration/). The likely explanation is that, as I mention in the post, the drivers of attitudes towards immigration are not only economic in nature. The literature does not offer an answer for this specific pattern. A possible reason might be that highly educated migrants are perceived as culturally closer, particularly to highly educated natives.
What about Brazil? The free trade and privatisation era reduced the demand for high skill and high education labour while the commodities boom increased the demand for low skill labour resulting in a reduction of inequality. But I doubt working class people in Brazil support neoliberal policies.
There might be little directly measurable economic effect in the lowest wage bracket from immigration (and obviously minimum wage would complicate things further) but I bet there are subtler qualitative effects, such as:
1) new immigrants often are willing to work harder, longer hours and in worse conditions than natives because they come from countries where working conditions and demands are worse.
2) new immigrants are less willing or interested in organising, protesting or standing up to demands from employers / managers because they have more to lose AND more to gain.
3) the marginal utility of earnings for new immigrants and less new immigrants who send money "home" is much higher than for natives.
4) many new immigrants who do low paid jobs are actually extremely "overqualified" in terms of general education (and likely IQ/how fast they learn) even if they might struggle linguistically at first. So the competition with natives is on some level "unfair".
5) the same for drive, ambition and motivation.
So while direct effect on actual paid wages might be minimal, especially in a situation of labour shortage, the context/environment changes to much more demanding. The standards change, subtly but noticeably, and the cultural nativist superiority becomes the last refuge.
Great text as usual, Lionel. Is there evidence that gender issues have been also an important driver in the shift to the right? It is hard to believe that the demonisation of men ("toxic masculinity") by segments of the Left has not had an influence on this. Many people and institutions have pointed out this (e.g. Richard Reeves in "On boys and men")
It’s not really that mystifying. The working class has always been socially-conservative. Once the elite in every Western country became socially-liberal in the extreme, driven in part by their guilt, formerly-center-left parties became abhorrent to the working class. Labor parties in many countries - the US, the UK, Germany, e.g. - got swallowed up by elites and changed their character. The working class feels the visceral hatred the elites have for them. The elites now realize that they can’t win without working class votes, but it’s hard to win the votes of people you hate, don’t understand, and try to study like zoo animals.
Who are the low-information voters? Are those the people who couldn’t tell they were being lied to about a pandemic, or about the mental status of an elected President, because they believe everything the legacy media says?
It’s the 90% of the population who does not believe politics affects them. Or they are too caught up in the nitty-gritty of every day life to pay attention. No social media app penetrates the bubble these folks live in and no social media app that touches on real issues reaches these 90%.
Unless it’s mis- or dis-information. And that’s all the “information” they need to lap up right wing talking points.
When the left and right parties are run by and for corporate imperialist muppets, I suppose working class voters choose the party on the basis of whose brand of identity politics more closely matches their own.
One reason, it seems that subsidies and support are going to people like drug addicts in San Francisco instead of working class people and their children.
The left/liberal shibboleth that lower-income people vote against their own interests is one of the most subtly arrogant and condescending phrases in politics. “Those proles don’t know what’s good for them; they should listen to their betters.”
Disdain is not a strategy. Eventually those people will tell you to get stuffed.
I think it’s time to put the tired old simplistic left-right division, which assumes economic and social preferences align, out of its misery. There may have been a time when social classes neatly sorted into these binary dimensions, with the position in one strongly predicting the position in the other, but that us no longer the case. Even the fondness of authoritarianism, long associated with the extreme right is no longer that exclusive.
That disconnect is deftly exploited by “right-wing” populists who marry old left-wing redistribution policies with old right-wing socially conservative anti-woke rhetoric.
This is such a good, impressively referenced series. Thanks!
If you assume the Econ 101 theory of immigration suppressing wages is true then why do high skill workers support high skill immigration? Shouldn't the working class also support high skill immigration because it might reduce inequality?
That's a good question. Highly educated voters are actually found to support high-skilled migration more than low-income voters (https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/01/22/appendix-b-detailed-demographic-tables-high-skilled-immigration/). The likely explanation is that, as I mention in the post, the drivers of attitudes towards immigration are not only economic in nature. The literature does not offer an answer for this specific pattern. A possible reason might be that highly educated migrants are perceived as culturally closer, particularly to highly educated natives.
What about Brazil? The free trade and privatisation era reduced the demand for high skill and high education labour while the commodities boom increased the demand for low skill labour resulting in a reduction of inequality. But I doubt working class people in Brazil support neoliberal policies.
There might be little directly measurable economic effect in the lowest wage bracket from immigration (and obviously minimum wage would complicate things further) but I bet there are subtler qualitative effects, such as:
1) new immigrants often are willing to work harder, longer hours and in worse conditions than natives because they come from countries where working conditions and demands are worse.
2) new immigrants are less willing or interested in organising, protesting or standing up to demands from employers / managers because they have more to lose AND more to gain.
3) the marginal utility of earnings for new immigrants and less new immigrants who send money "home" is much higher than for natives.
4) many new immigrants who do low paid jobs are actually extremely "overqualified" in terms of general education (and likely IQ/how fast they learn) even if they might struggle linguistically at first. So the competition with natives is on some level "unfair".
5) the same for drive, ambition and motivation.
So while direct effect on actual paid wages might be minimal, especially in a situation of labour shortage, the context/environment changes to much more demanding. The standards change, subtly but noticeably, and the cultural nativist superiority becomes the last refuge.
Great text as usual, Lionel. Is there evidence that gender issues have been also an important driver in the shift to the right? It is hard to believe that the demonisation of men ("toxic masculinity") by segments of the Left has not had an influence on this. Many people and institutions have pointed out this (e.g. Richard Reeves in "On boys and men")
Waa shaqada indai ❌️❌️❓️#@abdiwali1👈🏻
It’s not really that mystifying. The working class has always been socially-conservative. Once the elite in every Western country became socially-liberal in the extreme, driven in part by their guilt, formerly-center-left parties became abhorrent to the working class. Labor parties in many countries - the US, the UK, Germany, e.g. - got swallowed up by elites and changed their character. The working class feels the visceral hatred the elites have for them. The elites now realize that they can’t win without working class votes, but it’s hard to win the votes of people you hate, don’t understand, and try to study like zoo animals.
Not sure. But they’re incredibly popular with low INFORMATION voters…
Who are the low-information voters? Are those the people who couldn’t tell they were being lied to about a pandemic, or about the mental status of an elected President, because they believe everything the legacy media says?
In short, yes.
It’s the 90% of the population who does not believe politics affects them. Or they are too caught up in the nitty-gritty of every day life to pay attention. No social media app penetrates the bubble these folks live in and no social media app that touches on real issues reaches these 90%.
Unless it’s mis- or dis-information. And that’s all the “information” they need to lap up right wing talking points.
When the left and right parties are run by and for corporate imperialist muppets, I suppose working class voters choose the party on the basis of whose brand of identity politics more closely matches their own.
If they even bother to vote.
One reason, it seems that subsidies and support are going to people like drug addicts in San Francisco instead of working class people and their children.