patrick.net

The kicker:

"Finally, there’s the never-mentioned possibility: that the best-educated, most-affluent, most politically influential Americans like this result. They may wring their hands over inequality, but in everyday life they see segregation as a feature, not a bug. It keeps out fat people with bad taste. Paul Krugman may wax nostalgic about a childhood spent in the suburbs where plumbers and middle managers lived side by side. But I doubt that many of his fervent fans would really want to live there. If so, they might try Texas."

Bingo.

I've always suspected that wealthy liberals had contempt for average Americans. And we wonder why the New Deal Coalition is dead. And the top 0.1% is laughing all the way to the (bailed out) bank.

"What's the matter with Kansas?" Indeed!

wthrfrk80 says

the wealthy had contempt for average Americans

fixed this for you, agree with the rest though

tts,

I called out rich "liberals" specifically since they are the most hypocritical, at least in my mind. That was the whole point of that article: well educated folks with "liberal" political views screwing-over their less well-to-do brethren. Specifically with environmental policies that hurt low-income people the most.

Many want the credit for "caring about the poor" but then do everything in their power to make them even poorer. And god forbid they actually live near the poor.

Poor places are short on the capital that would make local labor more productive.

This particular statement is wrong. Just think about this specific statement and how wrong it is regardless of whether or not the rest of the article is correct.

Let's say in Massachusetts a steel worker produces $100 of wealth each day and takes home $80/day in compensation (wages and benefits). Let's say in Alabama a steel worker produces $100 of wealth each day and takes home $20/day in compensation.

Is the steel worker in Alabama more productive than the one in Massachusetts? No. They both produce exactly $100 a wealth every day.

The Alabama worker is not more productive, but rather more exploitable. The providers of capital can "fuck over" the Alabama worker more than the Massachusetts worker. This does not mean that one is more productive than the other even though the capital provider makes more money off of the slave laborer.

The individual capital provider is better off exploiting the worker with less bargaining power, but society as a whole and even capital providers as a group are better off if such exploitations do not occur. It is simply the tragedy of the commons. And when that tragedy is avoided, the economy is far more productive and everybody, even the parasites, are better off.

wthrfrk80 says

I called out rich "liberals" specifically since they are the most hypocritical, at least in my mind. That was the whole point of that article: well educated folks with "liberal" political views screwing-over their less well-to-do brethren. Specifically with environmental policies that hurt low-income people the most.

Rich "liberals'? Something like 75% of people making over 250k are registered republicans I read. Well educated and rich are not the same thing.

wthrfrk80 says

I called out rich "liberals" specifically since they are the most hypocritical, at least in my mind.

Sure but how many rich liberals are there out there?

It seems to me to be a distinction without much real world use.

If you really want to hate a particular group the ones who constantly go around saying, "I'm socially liberal but a fiscal conservative" and then go and vote Republican or Libertarian would perhaps be worthy of some hate. Most of them I've seen were intelligent and had some college but still effectively voted against their interests every time.

Ruki says

So, using your example with HOW the author meant he said, it would go along with like this.

Yet the solution I proposed in many threads still applies. Have the execs receive the same compensation as the median producer. Execs still need to maximize productivity to maximize their own wealth, but they cannot increase their wealth through parasitic behavior or zero-sum games with the producers.

Such a system would fulfill all the stated goals of both red states and blue states.

bob2356 says

Something like 75% of people making over 250k are registered republicans I read. Well educated and rich are not the same thing.

Well if that's true, I'm relieved. The rich "conservatives" are far less hypocritical at least.

bob2356 says

Something like 75% of people making over 250k are registered republicans I read.

I find it hard to believe that 75% of the people in any income bracket are even registered to vote.

If I get paid the same regardless of what I do I will sit on my ass and do nothing. If you try to evaluate my contribution I will game your system.

Let the market decide who should get paid what.