Blame Trump’s Victory on College-Educated Whites, Not the Working Class - Polidicks

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51384713]Okay, I dont know. How does not taxing them help? How do you solve that issue without taxation? Minimum wage raises are considered to be bad so what is the answer[/QUOTE] problobly a poor excuse like "with that extra money the rich can make more jobs" bla bla bla wouldn't be surprised if they genuinely believed that.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51384713]Okay, I dont know. How does not taxing them help? How do you solve that issue without taxation? Minimum wage raises are considered to be bad so what is the answer[/QUOTE] Did you see me say minimum wage increases are bad? I didn't, and thats not my opinion. Increasing minimum wages seems to be mostly good. Nor is that related to increasing taxes on the rich. Try to be coherent. So you don't know how increasing taxes on the rich helps income inequality (it doesn't) but you still are in favor of it because.... ????

[QUOTE=soulharvester;51384421]Right, but here's the thing with that, when you raise the minimum wage you directly make more people unemployable. Part of the problem with our economy right now is that it's TOO expensive to hire people. Sure the people that ARE in work get a bigger paycheck, but not only does that result in a smaller work force it also results in inflation which both counteracts the the wage increase AND makes it more difficult for the unemployed. This fallacy that you can solve poverty by simply increasing the minimum wage is actively damaging our economy. Driving employers out of business doesn't improve the economy, it destroys the job market.[/QUOTE] except, more money in the people's hands = more customers overall.

[url]http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/13/news/economy/taxing-the-rich-will-not-curb-inequality/[/url] As for the propensity of the wealthy to engage in both loophole and illegal practices, there exists a total of one studies on this to my knowledge and it is very flawed for obvious reasons. The wealthy already engage in massive tax evasion as recent events have exposed, why would anyone think that increasing top tax is going to do anything but make them engage in more of this behavior? Ironically, i think the rich increased taxes would hurt the most ARE the ones who are in position to create new jobs. It won't be the born into generational fortunes who dont do anything with their money, it will be the people who have become wealthy through creating businesses.

[QUOTE=codemaster85;51384923]except, more money in the people's hands = more customers overall.[/QUOTE] except, it really doesn't seem like you know how money works at all.

Why specifically pointing a race and a class? Trump has its fair share of POC vote too.

[QUOTE=codemaster85;51384923]except, more money in the people's hands = more customers overall.[/QUOTE] That's only necessarily true assuming that the value of the currency is fixed and that employment doesn't go down as a result. These policies have consequences. If employers can't make profit back on their investments they have no reason to continue employing people at a loss or unreasonable expense.

[QUOTE=codemaster85;51384923]except, more money in the people's hands = more customers overall.[/QUOTE] How does that start working out when people are getting laid off because the wages you think they're going to be spending are too expensive to pay? Over 20 million (probably way more than that post-2008) people work right on the minimum wage. It's completely true that putting more money in the hands of that many people would do wonders for the US economy and help towards fixing the poor income equality of America. Imagine how many would be let go due to the fact that some propositions for a new minimum wage would entail paying many people up to twice as much as current. It won't be sustainable and a likely outcome is 10-20% maybe of minimum wage workers being put out of a job. What then? As untasteful a truth it is. Minimum wage jobs are the entry level for the unemployed. It's crap pay for mindless busy work a great deal of the time. If you make it harder for businesses to employ people on even the lowest level, especially when the economy is not booming, it's the start of a spiral of unemployment and business failure. I don't know a solution that would be palatable, people spend a long time in universities studying these problems and they can't fix it right.

the alt-right voted for trump? wow what a surprise

[QUOTE=Lambeth;51383778]That's not really Obama's fault, inequality has been building for decades. Maybe if Republicans had actually worked with him he could have done something about it![/QUOTE] Yeah I mean it's [I]obviously[/I] the republicans fault, as is everything ever

[QUOTE=SirJon;51385477]Yeah I mean it's [I]obviously[/I] the republicans fault, as is everything ever[/QUOTE] Republicans are responsible for a lot of shit but to be honest this isn't really it. When he was passing Obamacare it was actually democrats that required parts of it be cut. Obama is a neoliberal just like the rest, he's not going to do anything about inequality and neither will Trump.

It's stupid to blame the voters. They did what they were supposed to do, which was vote for the candidate that they trust in the most. Maybe Hillary should've focused more time on these demographics if she really wanted to win.

The thing is she did win but just not the right people in the right states.

She lost because in America some votes are worth more than others.

[QUOTE=Electrocuter;51385574]She lost because in America some votes are worth more than others.[/QUOTE] Doesn't really explain how she lost states that are traditionally blue like Michigan, PA, and Wisconsin. I hate the EC as much as anyone, but she lost states/areas strategically and it was never in Trump's favor.

[QUOTE=download;51383681]Ah yes, it's all their fault that Hillary was a terrible candidate and they didn't want to vote for her.[/QUOTE] pretty much what sanders supporters have been saying since the get-go, he even showed her that she couldnt win Michigan and she still didnt learn

[QUOTE=soulharvester;51384760]Return to an actual free market would help, should look up some of Peter Schiff's stuff, his stances are the bulk of what reinforce my own. [URL]https://www.youtube.com/user/SchiffReport/videos[/URL][/QUOTE] Oh an "actual free market"? Really? Like the completely unregulated one that has never existed?

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51383699]Sounds about right, most of our Students For Trump club consists of white STEM and Social Science students. They feel our club gave them a way to speak out about actual problems for white people in a very liberal and diverse campus that focuses on problems among minority groups. Even though our club started this semester I believe that white alumni probably felt the same need but didn't have the chance to voice themselves in college.[/QUOTE] What entails "actual problems for white people" exactly?

[QUOTE=JustExtreme;51385903]Oh an "actual free market"? Really? Like the completely unregulated one that has never existed?[/QUOTE] I don't know about that report. But a lot of the reason for the inequality is regulations. Large corporations can afford hiring entire departments for compliance. Small businesses cannot. So what happens is things get regulated to death. There is a need for regulation, but it must be minimal and to the point. Which most of our current set of regulations were created by the lobby of big corporations. Because they don't want to see someone else offer a competitive product for cheaper. They want those competitors to be squeezed out before they even get off the ground. And what better way to do that than to use the government's regulations. California is a great example of this. In my area we're getting a lot of technology companies moving to our state from California. And its mainly due to the regulatory environment. Regulations need to have a very specific focus and minimize the amount of loss they create on companies to comply. When you have thousands of regulations it is very hard to keep up to make sure your company is in compliance.

[QUOTE=Kigen;51386045]I don't know about that report. But a lot of the reason for the inequality is regulations. Large corporations can afford hiring entire departments for compliance. Small businesses cannot. So what happens is things get regulated to death. There is a need for regulation, but it must be minimal and to the point. Which most of our current set of regulations were created by the lobby of big corporations. Because they don't want to see someone else offer a competitive product for cheaper. They want those competitors to be squeezed out before they even get off the ground. And what better way to do that than to use the government's regulations. California is a great example of this. In my area we're getting a lot of technology companies moving to our state from California. And its mainly due to the regulatory environment. Regulations need to have a very specific focus and minimize the amount of loss they create on companies to comply. When you have thousands of regulations it is very hard to keep up to make sure your company is in compliance.[/QUOTE] When regulations are loosened, what evidence is there to show companies won't just pocket the new profits into their CEO's accounts instead of "hiring entire departments"?

I think he has a point, the EU countries that have much lower wealth inequality than the US like Germany, Finland, etc. are Libertarian Capitalist paradises. 19th century USA was also incredible at keeping inequality down.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51386154]I think he has a point, the EU countries that have much lower wealth inequality than the US like Germany, Finland, etc. are Libertarian Capitalist paradises. 19th century USA was also incredible at keeping inequality down.[/QUOTE] Germany and Finland are Libertarian?

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51386178]Germany and Finland are Libertarian?[/QUOTE] Nah I'm being sarcastic

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51386183]Nah I'm being sarcastic[/QUOTE] I should have caught onto that, considering Libertarianism has never been tested in government...

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51386214]I should have caught onto that, considering Libertarianism has never been tested in government...[/QUOTE] Libertarianism is a lot like classical liberalism which has

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51386154]I think he has a point, the EU countries that have much lower wealth inequality than the US like Germany, Finland, etc. are Libertarian Capitalist paradises. 19th century USA was also incredible at keeping inequality down.[/QUOTE] Well we've got that inequality and social justice thing going now and, for the most part, fixed it. So why not add a little less government into the mix?

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;51385993]What entails "actual problems for white people" exactly?[/QUOTE] Decreasing social mobility, rising wealth inequality, loss of jobs, increasing cost of education, increasing cost of healthcare, etc, etc, etc. None of which are specific to being white of course, but for many Americans these would be their biggest problems. Concerns which the Democratic establishment shows no signs of addressing. Trump may or may not actually do anything about these problems (I'm thinking not) but at least he was the one talking about them.

[QUOTE=hipstergeek;51384960]except, it really doesn't seem like you know how money works at all.[/QUOTE] Except it has shown that increasing minwage increases the middle and lower class' spending power which means a lot more trade due to more bought services and goods. Basic economics would tell you that, hell reading an article explaining why minwage is good will tell you the same.

Was there an outcry like this about black votes when Obama won?

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;51386350]Well we've got that inequality and social justice thing going now and, for the most part, fixed it. So why not add a little less government into the mix?[/QUOTE] Well, social justice addresses ethnicity and gender, not just plain ol' proletariat and bourgeois inequality. I haven't seen any evidence or really historical periods where throwing in less government has helped that. In fact, for the 20th century the two times the inequality declined sharply was during the progressive era and the new deal coalition, both making the government considerably bigger. [QUOTE=yff;51386524]Was there an outcry like this about black votes when Obama won?[/QUOTE] Yeah, some. There was accusations of blacks just voting for obama because he's black.