The left would like to fleece the rich in favor of the poor, but the rich are hard to fleece: are politically organized, have influence in government, can lobby, can hide money, etc. So in practice they do the next best thing: fleece the middle class in favor of the poor: that’s where a lot of money is too, and it’s easier to get it. That some working middle class types aren’t fond of this should surprise no one.
There are cultural issues in the south, too.
I don’t think voting patterns are that weird, I think the puzzlement here isn’t genuine puzzlement, but a kind of back-patting: “but … we are so great …”
I think this was adequately covered in the posts about “zebra status”, each class of society signalling they are not the one under. The working class signalling they are not the welfare class etc.
Prediction: redistributive policies to people who actually have a blue-collar job would find huge popular support as long as they are different in kind, not just numbers. Because fiddling with income thresholds does not given a strong message. But figure out something a working person needs and a not working one not so much. Say, free kindergarten? I think things like this would be hugely popular.
The trick of of the popularity of European welfare states is that they do not see themselves as charities to help the the poorest poor but services providers for basically but the richest few.
Apparently it was more or less a conscious choice in America that the welfare state looks after only the neediest and purposefully leaves out the working and middle classes e.g. Medicare / Medicaid which a 21 years old factory worker at GM has little reasons to support, he will not get anything out of them for decades.
This choice—to set up the welfare state as a charity for the unusually needy, not a service provider for all, has doomed its popularity. After all, who likes to think they are unusually needy?
The caricature in the US:
The left would like to fleece the rich in favor of the poor, but the rich are hard to fleece: are politically organized, have influence in government, can lobby, can hide money, etc. So in practice they do the next best thing: fleece the middle class in favor of the poor: that’s where a lot of money is too, and it’s easier to get it. That some working middle class types aren’t fond of this should surprise no one.
There are cultural issues in the south, too.
I don’t think voting patterns are that weird, I think the puzzlement here isn’t genuine puzzlement, but a kind of back-patting: “but … we are so great …”
This is a caricature.
I think this was adequately covered in the posts about “zebra status”, each class of society signalling they are not the one under. The working class signalling they are not the welfare class etc.
Prediction: redistributive policies to people who actually have a blue-collar job would find huge popular support as long as they are different in kind, not just numbers. Because fiddling with income thresholds does not given a strong message. But figure out something a working person needs and a not working one not so much. Say, free kindergarten? I think things like this would be hugely popular.
The trick of of the popularity of European welfare states is that they do not see themselves as charities to help the the poorest poor but services providers for basically but the richest few.
Apparently it was more or less a conscious choice in America that the welfare state looks after only the neediest and purposefully leaves out the working and middle classes e.g. Medicare / Medicaid which a 21 years old factory worker at GM has little reasons to support, he will not get anything out of them for decades.
This choice—to set up the welfare state as a charity for the unusually needy, not a service provider for all, has doomed its popularity. After all, who likes to think they are unusually needy?