CDZ Since when did this become the conservative mantra? Where's the perspective?

[320 Years of History]

As I sit here working, I have CNN on in the background. Christine Romans, a CNN financial reporter, began giving a summary of the decline in manufacturing jobs in the U.S. One thing I noticed is that she did not mention the rise in service jobs in the U.S. Major failing of her commentary, particularly as she also failed to make the case that a manufacturing job is better than a service industry job.

For example, I work in the services industry. I make a very good salary, one with which anyone would be satisfied (enough that whether I'd accept a higher paying role depends more on my willingness to take on the added responsibility and the incumbent work-life-balance trade-offs than on what the position's wage is), and so do my colleagues. Indeed, I doubt I and they could earn a comparable salary in manufacturing...some of us could, but there quite simply aren't and never were enough jobs in manufacturing that pay as much as we earn for us all to switch to manufacturing and make about the same money.

Ms. Romans' remarks were a preamble to a political analysis/commentary segment a woman named Poppy "Something or Other" hosted. In making her remarks, Ms. Romans pointed out that according to the U.S. Census Bureau, between 2001 and 2013, ~4.5 million manufacturing jobs were lost. There again, however, she failed to put the figures in context. The American workforce consists of some ~145 million people; therefore, we are talking about 3% of the workforce. Yes, 4.5 million people seems like a lot of people. If one had to count them one by one, it'd be a lot of people. On the scale of an economy having 145 million workers the figures alone tell me there's nothing I should be concerned about.

"American voters feel left behind. They believe the 21st century economy benefits investors and bosses, super rich and party bosses and status quo politicians. Essentially their economic self esteem is in the dumps...6 of 10 primary voters say they are holding steady. Quite a disconnect."​

Now I can't define what "holding steady" means precisely, but I do know what it doesn't mean. It doesn't mean is "worse off." So, yes, she got that right; that's quite a dichotomy between what people say when they are griping about the "state of things," versus what is the circumstance of 60% of the people griping.

What be the cause of the incongruity? I don't know because I think the country is overall doing well. GDP is rising and unemployment is at structural or near structural unemployment rates. American companies enjoy year over year growth in earnings. Prices are low. But most importantly, for workers who've shifted from the industries that were most in demand in the 20th century to those that are are most in demand in the 21st century, wages have vastly outpaced inflation.

And therein is what I believe is at the heart of why folks are griping: they don't want to shift from manufacturing to the services industry. That's fine with me personally for it keeps my salary high because of the lower quantity of people who are able and willing to do the work. It's not fine for those people because it means they aren't experiencing wage growth to the extent they'd like. Well, what I am I do about that? (I know what my answer is to that question, but I don't think most conservatives, at least not the populist ones, have the same answer.)

(If you aren't well schooled with structural unemployment and its impact on an economy and society, and you are of the mind that the "the economy is going to hell in a handbasket," check out Marx's discussion(s) on the matter. It'll give you pause, most particularly if you think of yourself as a conservative/Republican, when you consider his remarks in the current economic climate of the U.S. Here's a scholarly comparison of several views.)


One of Poppy's commentators, David Gergen, in the main political discussion, remarked with regard to Ms. Romans' observations as follows:

• 80% of folks haven't gotten a pay raise since the Great Crash
• Larry Katz --> Most new jobs are "gig" jobs or people going into business for themselves. (I have not yet read the study.)
• Trump exploits the anger voters have as go the preceding two remarks and Ms. Roman's observations.
  
• Trump differs from Reagan in that Trump lacks the critical experience that Regan had gained as Governor of the world's 5th largest economy. Reagan learned how to be an effective executive, how to use quiet negotiation across aisles and not to use blunderbuss tactics.

The Trump message is "this isn't working" and his supporters agree with him.​

So, looking at Mr. Gergen's remarks, it is the second one that struck me as most bizarre. I have ask working age people this: Where have you been all your life? What ever gave you the idea that being self-employed was a bad thing, the wrong way to find success in the U.S., etc? Since when did conservatives actually take exception with the idea that one should, perhaps even must, take control of one's life and find success by going into business for oneself?

Really? People, voters, particularly so-called conservative voters, are dismayed over having to be self-employed? Ummm...Hello! The U.S. was founded on the principle of being self-employed and it's overall economic and political system was designed by and for folks who were self-employed.

That has not ever not been the case, yet folks are "crying the blues" these days as though someone changed the rules in mid game. No such thing has transpired. When exactly did the conservative mantra shift from "get up off your duff and do something" to "woe is me because of you?" I have to ask those questions because right now, that is essentially the substance of Trump's (and Sanders') message.

Now, do I have a problem with folks making the point that "woe is me because of you?" No, I don't. I just see it as "two faced" to say that with regard to one's own situation and simultaneously failing to see it is (or how it might be) so with regard to that of others'. Therein lies the problem I have with most everything conservatives of late have to say. For me, it's an integrity issue, not one of whether any given conservative or conservative movement is right or wrong.

Disclosure:
For the sake of full disclosure, I am an executive (a direct report to the folks at the "C-level") in a professional services firm, so I have a very good sense of what it takes to get a service industry job and what kinds of salaries one can earn in the service industry. Are there as many jobs in my segment of services as there are people who qualify to get them? No, but then that's no different than in any other industry, and at some point every year, we have trouble finding qualified applicants. And, no, one cannot apply saying "I'm ready to work and I'll work hard for you," and/or otherwise expect to get a job in my or my competitors' firms with just a high school diploma, or even with a mediocre college/grad school record and/or work history that demonstrates no noteworthy track record of high and consistent achievement.

 

[talksalot]

The numbers from the latest research conducted by the Small Business Administration: According to the SBA, about two-thirds, or 66 percent last past the first two years, leaving only a third of businesses that fail within these two years. Extended to four years, the number of surviving businesses decreases to only 44 percent, meaning that about 56 percent of businesses fail at the five-year mark.

Starting a business is expensive and risky and the current government does not favor small business owners.

 

[jwoodie]

Manufacturing (or lack thereof) results in a transfer of wealth between countries; services do not. Our country will not become wealthier by dining out more often.

 

[DGS49]

For the moment I will assume you are not full of schidt, and take you seriously. "Service industry jobs," generally speaking, suck. The pay is terrible, the hours are irregular, the benefits are near non-existent, and unions are rare. The infamous SEIU represents only the service employees who are in industries where competition is non-existent. Manufacturing jobs historically have been well-paying, stable, and usually sufficient to maintain a middle-class lifestyle. And they ACTUALLY PRODUCE SOMETHING, which is a plus.

Other than working for government or in the medical industry, or a public utility, NOBODY IN THEIR RIGHT MIND would aspire to work in the Service Industry. And if you are in fact an executive in the service industry, your compensation is probably enhanced by the exploitation of underlings working for minimum wage - people who will get out of the Service Industry at their earliest opportunity.

 

[320 Years of History]

Service industry jobs," generally speaking, suck. The pay is terrible, the hours are irregular, the benefits are near non-existent, and unions are rare.

Tell that to the literally millions of people working in management consulting, medicine, banking and other financial services, architecture, engineering, advertising and media, and other professional service capacities. Those jobs come with some of the best pay, benefits, etc. to be found. I agree, however, the hours are "irregular" in that one may at times work 16-20 hours in a day, have a typical 10-12 hour workday, and on other occasions have time to burn. It's well worth noting that the industries I mentioned are the ones in which the U.S. has a comparative advantage over the entire rest of the world, which is why the jobs in those industries are well worth one's retooling one's skillsets to get them.

• http://www.piie.com/publications/chapters_preview/47/3iie2644.pdf
  
• Our Comparative Advantage - NYTimes.com

The short is that times have changed and the industries in which the U.S. excels are those that allow our people to "export" intellectual capital rather than finished goods. As a nation, we need to just face that fact or, as individuals who want to work in factories, move to countries that have a comparative advantage in physical labor.

 

[Elvis Obama]

As I sit here working, I have CNN on in the background. Christine Romans, a CNN financial reporter, began giving a summary of the decline in manufacturing jobs in the U.S. One thing I noticed is that she did not mention the rise in service jobs in the U.S. Major failing of her commentary, particularly as she also failed to make the case that a manufacturing job is better than a service industry job.

For example, I work in the services industry. I make a very good salary, one with which anyone would be satisfied (enough that whether I'd accept a higher paying role depends more on my willingness to take on the added responsibility and the incumbent work-life-balance trade-offs than on what the position's wage is), and so do my colleagues. Indeed, I doubt I and they could earn a comparable salary in manufacturing...some of us could, but there quite simply aren't and never were enough jobs in manufacturing that pay as much as we earn for us all to switch to manufacturing and make about the same money.

Ms. Romans' remarks were a preamble to a political analysis/commentary segment a woman named Poppy "Something or Other" hosted. In making her remarks, Ms. Romans pointed out that according to the U.S. Census Bureau, between 2001 and 2013, ~4.5 million manufacturing jobs were lost. There again, however, she failed to put the figures in context. The American workforce consists of some ~145 million people; therefore, we are talking about 3% of the workforce. Yes, 4.5 million people seems like a lot of people. If one had to count them one by one, it'd be a lot of people. On the scale of an economy having 145 million workers the figures alone tell me there's nothing I should be concerned about.

"American voters feel left behind. They believe the 21st century economy benefits investors and bosses, super rich and party bosses and status quo politicians. Essentially their economic self esteem is in the dumps...6 of 10 primary voters say they are holding steady. Quite a disconnect."​

Now I can't define what "holding steady" means precisely, but I do know what it doesn't mean. It doesn't mean is "worse off." So, yes, she got that right; that's quite a dichotomy between what people say when they are griping about the "state of things," versus what is the circumstance of 60% of the people griping.

What be the cause of the incongruity? I don't know because I think the country is overall doing well. GDP is rising and unemployment is at structural or near structural unemployment rates. American companies enjoy year over year growth in earnings. Prices are low. But most importantly, for workers who've shifted from the industries that were most in demand in the 20th century to those that are are most in demand in the 21st century, wages have vastly outpaced inflation.

And therein is what I believe is at the heart of why folks are griping: they don't want to shift from manufacturing to the services industry. That's fine with me personally for it keeps my salary high because of the lower quantity of people who are able and willing to do the work. It's not fine for those people because it means they aren't experiencing wage growth to the extent they'd like. Well, what I am I do about that? (I know what my answer is to that question, but I don't think most conservatives, at least not the populist ones, have the same answer.)

(If you aren't well schooled with structural unemployment and its impact on an economy and society, and you are of the mind that the "the economy is going to hell in a handbasket," check out Marx's discussion(s) on the matter. It'll give you pause, most particularly if you think of yourself as a conservative/Republican, when you consider his remarks in the current economic climate of the U.S. Here's a scholarly comparison of several views.)


One of Poppy's commentators, David Gergen, in the main political discussion, remarked with regard to Ms. Romans' observations as follows:

• 80% of folks haven't gotten a pay raise since the Great Crash
• Larry Katz --> Most new jobs are "gig" jobs or people going into business for themselves. (I have not yet read the study.)
• Trump exploits the anger voters have as go the preceding two remarks and Ms. Roman's observations.
  
• Trump differs from Reagan in that Trump lacks the critical experience that Regan had gained as Governor of the world's 5th largest economy. Reagan learned how to be an effective executive, how to use quiet negotiation across aisles and not to use blunderbuss tactics.

The Trump message is "this isn't working" and his supporters agree with him.​

So, looking at Mr. Gergen's remarks, it is the second one that struck me as most bizarre. I have ask working age people this: Where have you been all your life? What ever gave you the idea that being self-employed was a bad thing, the wrong way to find success in the U.S., etc? Since when did conservatives actually take exception with the idea that one should, perhaps even must, take control of one's life and find success by going into business for oneself?

Really? People, voters, particularly so-called conservative voters, are dismayed over having to be self-employed? Ummm...Hello! The U.S. was founded on the principle of being self-employed and it's overall economic and political system was designed by and for folks who were self-employed.

That has not ever not been the case, yet folks are "crying the blues" these days as though someone changed the rules in mid game. No such thing has transpired. When exactly did the conservative mantra shift from "get up off your duff and do something" to "woe is me because of you?" I have to ask those questions because right now, that is essentially the substance of Trump's (and Sanders') message.

Now, do I have a problem with folks making the point that "woe is me because of you?" No, I don't. I just see it as "two faced" to say that with regard to one's own situation and simultaneously failing to see it is (or how it might be) so with regard to that of others'. Therein lies the problem I have with most everything conservatives of late have to say. For me, it's an integrity issue, not one of whether any given conservative or conservative movement is right or wrong.

Disclosure:
For the sake of full disclosure, I am an executive (a direct report to the folks at the "C-level") in a professional services firm, so I have a very good sense of what it takes to get a service industry job and what kinds of salaries one can earn in the service industry. Are there as many jobs in my segment of services as there are people who qualify to get them? No, but then that's no different than in any other industry, and at some point every year, we have trouble finding qualified applicants. And, no, one cannot apply saying "I'm ready to work and I'll work hard for you," and/or otherwise expect to get a job in my or my competitors' firms with just a high school diploma, or even with a mediocre college/grad school record and/or work history that demonstrates no noteworthy track record of high and consistent achievement.

'And therein is what I believe is at the heart of why folks are griping: they don't want to shift from manufacturing to the services industry. "
They don't want to?

Seriously, I don't know which is funnier, people confusing a "service based economy" with being a waitress, or the notion that people who are left behind in economic transitions are being willfully lazy.

Marx was so right:
"“The mode of production of material life conditions the social, political and intellectual life process in general. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness.”

Man is free to think lofty thoughts and aspire to make the ideal real when he is the product of a society which has mastered the development and delivery of the best material life possible. Otherwise, we're reduced to grubbing for our very survival, and hardly in a position to aspire to anything.

All that having been said, I'm not sure what we're discussing here. Since when did what become the conservative mantra? That there is a growing income inequality? A shrinking of the middle-class and a corresponding rise in the ranks of the poor? That manufacturing jobs are superior?

I don't think the latter is germane. It's not a question of one type of job being superior to the other, it's a question of the transition from one to the other being destabilizing. The circumstances and opportunities shift faster than the people can adjust. It's not a matter of their being stubborn or lazy.

The purpose of government is to be a balancing force between the interests of the proles and the bourgeoisie. The proles cannot buy government, cannot corrupt government, but the bourgeoisie can and do. When they do, the delicate balance is lost, and the profoundly ignorant are angry without knowing why or who's to blame. In their ignorance they turn to Trump or whatever other demagoguing blowhard comes along.

 

[Agit8r]

I can see where it comes from. A lot of service sector jobs are low paying. Many also leave the worker feeling like an object of mockery.
It's like how one averts one's eyes from homeless people.

Also, many service sector jobs require a certain level of social skills--something that many males in this country were never encouraged to develop, or do not feel comfortable exercising.

Some politicians on both sides (but I'm afraid a bit more on the right) pander to these feelings or concerns.

 

[320 Years of History]

All that having been said, I'm not sure what we're discussing here. Since when did what become the conservative mantra?

Since when did the GOP cease touting the Horatio Alger mantra and shift to the "the system is rigged against us" line we are hearing these days from the Trump populists? Yet those folks are quick to talk about how liberals have done "this" and done "that," none of it good. So another part of what the discussion is about is "what has one done for oneself?" That's the way of the conservative party, Republicans, yet I keep hearing Republicans sounding like Democrats.

I don't know which is funnier, people confusing a "service based economy" with being a waitress, or the notion that people who are left behind in economic transitions are being willfully lazy.

"Willful ignorance" is closer to what I had in mind; however, I hadn't per se devised a label for it. I haven't any basis for asserting that folks are willfully lazy. I'm sure some are, but I don't think those folks comprise the lion's share of the populace.

I have no idea why folks think waiting tables is the beginning and end of the service industry. I can only ascribe the misconception to ignorance. I can't say whether it's willful or not in a cultural context, but I'm inclined to think it is. It's not as though folks haven't encountered medical professionals, bankers, many IT professionals, lawyers, sociologists, etc., and it's got to be plain as the nose on their faces that those workers provide services and don't produce tangible goods.

The circumstances and opportunities shift faster than the people can adjust.

Really? How much time does one need, for Christ's sake? The shift from manufacturing to service has been in the make since the 1990s. NAFTA was signed in 1994. It was not a secret treaty. On the contrary it was very widely discussed, and it was a clear then as now that manufacturers would seek lower cost loci of production as a way to maintain or establish price competitiveness and profitability.

Then again, maybe folks need more than 20+ years seeing as in all that time some of them haven't figured out that there's more to do in the service industry than wait tables.

Man is free to think lofty thoughts and aspire to make the ideal real when he is the product of a society which has mastered the development and delivery of the best material life possible.

And what is the U.S. but exactly that?

the profoundly ignorant are angry without knowing why or who's to blame. In their ignorance they turn to Trump or whatever other demagoguing blowhard comes along.

Yes. But as with so many things the place to look for the solution is in the mirror, not at Trump or any other politician.

It's not a question of one type of job being superior to the other, it's a question of the transition from one to the other being destabilizing.

Red:
I agree. One type of job is not better or worse than the other, yet one'd think so based on all the hoopla about "bring back manufacturing." I have nothing against manufacturing jobs. I just can see that's not where our economy is heading. The U.S.' "day in the sun" as the owner of comparative advantage in physical labor have passed. Better to face that fact and adjust. Its penultimate facility for adjusting is humanity's greatest advantage over every other species on the planet, and it's absurd to think that adaptability is limited to the natural world.

Blue:
Destabilizing? The very point of adapting is to find the economic stability one cannot find by not adapting.

 

[320 Years of History]

I can see where it comes from. A lot of service sector jobs are low paying. Many also leave the worker feeling like an object of mockery.
It's like how one averts one's eyes from homeless people.

Also, many service sector jobs require a certain level of social skills--something that many males in this country were never encouraged to develop, or do not feel comfortable exercising.

Some politicians on both sides (but I'm afraid a bit more on the right) pander to these feelings or concerns.

Red:
And that's the point of the OP. Pandering to those feelings was, and frankly remains, the Democratic way. Why so many self avowed Republicans are "jumping onto that bus" is beyond me.

 

[Agit8r]

I can see where it comes from. A lot of service sector jobs are low paying. Many also leave the worker feeling like an object of mockery.
It's like how one averts one's eyes from homeless people.

Also, many service sector jobs require a certain level of social skills--something that many males in this country were never encouraged to develop, or do not feel comfortable exercising.

Some politicians on both sides (but I'm afraid a bit more on the right) pander to these feelings or concerns.

Red:
And that's the point of the OP. Pandering to those feelings was, and frankly remains, the Democratic way. Why so many self avowed Republicans are "jumping onto that bus" is beyond me.

If a majority of the population felt that way, then perhaps it would be more democratic. Would have to see more polling data, to say for sure

 

[320 Years of History]

I can see where it comes from. A lot of service sector jobs are low paying. Many also leave the worker feeling like an object of mockery.
It's like how one averts one's eyes from homeless people.

Also, many service sector jobs require a certain level of social skills--something that many males in this country were never encouraged to develop, or do not feel comfortable exercising.

Some politicians on both sides (but I'm afraid a bit more on the right) pander to these feelings or concerns.

Red:
And that's the point of the OP. Pandering to those feelings was, and frankly remains, the Democratic way. Why so many self avowed Republicans are "jumping onto that bus" is beyond me.

If a majority of the population felt that way, then perhaps it would be more democratic. Would have to see more polling data, to say for sure

Believe it or not, the as of July 2015, country has about 10% more registered/self-avowed Democrats than Republicans. Based on that, I'd say the "it" is more Democrat than Republican.

Red:
Not to be pedantic, but to make sure you understand me because, though I did reply to you, I'm not 100% sure I understand what you wrote:

• Democrat/Democratic = a party affiliation
• democratic = of or relating to a political system

Capitalization matters.

 

[Agit8r]

I can see where it comes from. A lot of service sector jobs are low paying. Many also leave the worker feeling like an object of mockery.
It's like how one averts one's eyes from homeless people.

Also, many service sector jobs require a certain level of social skills--something that many males in this country were never encouraged to develop, or do not feel comfortable exercising.

Some politicians on both sides (but I'm afraid a bit more on the right) pander to these feelings or concerns.

Red:
And that's the point of the OP. Pandering to those feelings was, and frankly remains, the Democratic way. Why so many self avowed Republicans are "jumping onto that bus" is beyond me.

If a majority of the population felt that way, then perhaps it would be more democratic. Would have to see more polling data, to say for sure

Believe it or not, the as of July 2015, country has about 10% more registered/self-avowed Democrats than Republicans. Based on that, I'd say the "it" is more Democrat than Republican.

Red:
Not to be pedantic, but to make sure you understand me because, though I did reply to you, I'm not 100% sure I understand what you wrote:

• Democrat/Democratic = a party affiliation
• democratic = of or relating to a political system

Capitalization matters.

I see. I might make note that a whole region of the country that used to vote Democrat now votes Republican. Are there views classically conservative? I dare say that they are not.... really on most issues.

 

[Elvis Obama]

All that having been said, I'm not sure what we're discussing here. Since when did what become the conservative mantra?

Since when did the GOP cease touting the Horatio Alger mantra and shift to the "the system is rigged against us" line we are hearing these days from the Trump populists? Yet those folks are quick to talk about how liberals have done "this" and done "that," none of it good. So another part of what the discussion is about is "what has one done for oneself?" That's the way of the conservative party, Republicans, yet I keep hearing Republicans sounding like Democrats.

I don't know which is funnier, people confusing a "service based economy" with being a waitress, or the notion that people who are left behind in economic transitions are being willfully lazy.

"Willful ignorance" is closer to what I had in mind; however, I hadn't per se devised a label for it. I haven't any basis for asserting that folks are willfully lazy. I'm sure some are, but I don't think those folks comprise the lion's share of the populace.

I have no idea why folks think waiting tables is the beginning and end of the service industry. I can only ascribe the misconception to ignorance. I can't say whether it's willful or not in a cultural context, but I'm inclined to think it is. It's not as though folks haven't encountered medical professionals, bankers, many IT professionals, lawyers, sociologists, etc., and it's got to be plain as the nose on their faces that those workers provide services and don't produce tangible goods.

The circumstances and opportunities shift faster than the people can adjust.

Really? How much time does one need, for Christ's sake? The shift from manufacturing to service has been in the make since the 1990s. NAFTA was signed in 1994. It was not a secret treaty. On the contrary it was very widely discussed, and it was a clear then as now that manufacturers would seek lower cost loci of production as a way to maintain or establish price competitiveness and profitability.

Then again, maybe folks need more than 20+ years seeing as in all that time some of them haven't figured out that there's more to do in the service industry than wait tables.

Man is free to think lofty thoughts and aspire to make the ideal real when he is the product of a society which has mastered the development and delivery of the best material life possible.

And what is the U.S. but exactly that?

the profoundly ignorant are angry without knowing why or who's to blame. In their ignorance they turn to Trump or whatever other demagoguing blowhard comes along.

Yes. But as with so many things the place to look for the solution is in the mirror, not at Trump or any other politician.

It's not a question of one type of job being superior to the other, it's a question of the transition from one to the other being destabilizing.

Red:
I agree. One type of job is not better or worse than the other, yet one'd think so based on all the hoopla about "bring back manufacturing." I have nothing against manufacturing jobs. I just can see that's not where our economy is heading. The U.S.' "day in the sun" as the owner of comparative advantage in physical labor have passed. Better to face that fact and adjust. Its penultimate facility for adjusting is humanity's greatest advantage over every other species on the planet, and it's absurd to think that adaptability is limited to the natural world.

Blue:
Destabilizing? The very point of adapting is to find the economic stability one cannot find by not adapting.

Since when did the GOP cease touting the Horatio Alger mantra and shift to the "the system is rigged against us" line we are hearing these days from the Trump populists? Yet those folks are quick to talk about how liberals have done "this" and done "that," none of it good. So another part of what the discussion is about is "what has one done for oneself?" That's the way of the conservative party, Republicans, yet I keep hearing Republicans sounding like Democrats.

OK, that's clearer, but I struggle to know how to respond. It's like trying to draw a map in the middle of an earthquake. Once the ground stops shaking I'll get back to you. I'm not really aware of any trend where conservative pundits have changed their stances, though obviously they're all struggling to figure out the new terrain which has opened up under their feet.

Traditionally the loss of manufacturing jobs has been a progressive/Democratic issue, though the fact of it is admitted by everyone. The Republicans have had a free ride on this issue, up till now. They have managed, through misdirection, to distract their constituents. They have mythologized the "job creators" and succeeded in enticing the aspirational wealthy to act against their own best interests. Apparently that spell is broken. The Trump supporter seems to be part of a new coalition which is certainly not pro-Republican establishment, and not particularly conservative. Conservatism has delivered nothing for its rank and file supporters, and apparently they have reached the end of their patience.

I have no idea why folks think waiting tables is the beginning and end of the service industry.

I think people are confusing the phrases "food services industry" and "service based economy". Just a guess.

Really? How much time does one need, for Christ's sake? The shift from manufacturing to service has been in the make since the 1990s. NAFTA was signed in 1994. It was not a secret treaty. On the contrary it was very widely discussed, and it was a clear then as now that manufacturers would seek lower cost loci of production as a way to maintain or establish price competitiveness and profitability.

How long? To retrain a workforce? To minimize the negative impact of a fundamental shift in an economy? You have to try, don't you, before you can find out how to transition from larger and smaller shifts in industries. When have we ever tried to minimize the impact of a fundamental restructuring of our economy? When cars were replacing horses, the handwriting was pretty clear, wasn't it? Or was it? "Get a horse!' was a commonplace bit of mockery during this transitional period. It wasn't a clear-cut victory for cars until after WWII. Then there's the employees. What skills did the horse and buggy trade have that would make the transition to other jobs easier? Then there's the economy. People actually turned back to horses during the Depression.

NAFTA, also, was a tough read. It wasn't supposed to chase manufacturing jobs out of the US, according to its supporters. Seemed like nonsense to me then, and its proven to be nonsense, but how, exactly, were manufacturing employees supposed to reach that conclusion, given that different pundits predicted different results? Even if they could reach such a conclusion, what should they have done? The odds of successfully making such a transition are considerably more in your favor in your twenties and decline sharply with each passing year. Are you attempting to make a transition from manufacturing buggies to manufacturing cars, or are you going from making cars to... what, online banking? Optometry? That requires a lot more retraining and aptitude.

The point is, we never give any consideration to these kinds of transitions. We are defined by these transitions. The US was formed in the first place by displaced European workers (with a smattering of religious fanatics). We transitioned from a slave economy by tearing ourselves to pieces. Hardly good planning, and we continue to pay for that messy bit of history to this day.

All social transition is lengthy and destabilizing. The death throes of slavery plunged the South into an economic collapse from which they still haven't recovered. We handicapped the freed slaves in a million ways, which served the short term interests of various entities, but not the long term interests of the country as a whole. We need a rational government for that. Honest Abe might have been able to provide that, but Andrew Johnson was the worst possible man for the job, and again, we're still paying for that fact. We know what we should have done, we should have provided 40 acres and a mule, or even repatriated the freed slaves to Liberia. Any plan would have been better than no plan. We didn't start to mess with retraining programs until the sixties, and we're still pretty inept at it.

 

[william the wie]

A key problem is that the decline in employment is caused by rising output making automation more affordable. The internet is doing the same thing to services employment . Unless you are in butlering or plumbing you are a cost that someone above you wants to eliminate.

 

[320 Years of History]

I'm not really aware of any trend where conservative pundits have changed their stances, though obviously they're all struggling to figure out the new terrain which has opened up under their feet.

Well, to be sure, it appears to me to be more a populist trend than a pundits' one.

NAFTA, also, was a tough read. It wasn't supposed to chase manufacturing jobs out of the US, according to its supporters. Seemed like nonsense to me then, and its proven to be nonsense, but how, exactly, were manufacturing employees supposed to reach that conclusion, given that different pundits predicted different results?

Red:
Free trade didn't chase jobs away. It lowers (or slows the rate of increase of) prices. The manufacturing jobs did go with the factories. I'm not about to say they did not. What I'm saying is that if one wants to boost the quantity of available jobs in a capitalist system, one must produce something to export, and that something needs to be produced at a lower cost than other folks are also able to produce it. Free trade is about lowering the prices of goods, not about creating or destroying jobs. "We trade because the imports we receive allow us to enjoy a higher standard of living."

The very organization that tries to help American businesses succeed in winning foreign contracts -- because that brings new money into U.S. pockets, rather than just moving existing U.S. money around among U.S. residents -- is also the one folks talk about getting rid of: the Export-Import Bank.

I don't have a problem with there being a strong, extensive and profitable manufacturing segment of the U.S. economy. I have a problem with forcing manufacturers to produce things in the U.S. that can as well be produced anywhere and the only thing that differs is the cost of the manual labor (direct and Indirect) used to produce it. What good will that do?

My answer is little to none. Who, other than perhaps U.S. consumers, will buy the U.S. made "widget" when lots of other manufacturers outside the U.S. can and will make a comparable "widget" and sell it for less and make a tidy profit doing so? How can that situation be good for American workers or American manufacturers?

Blue:
Let me answer your question directly here at the outset, because I found myself on something of a rant, but I intend to leave the rant there.

If you came in my day, the way to find out about pretty much anything was to go to one's local public library and research the topic. These days the Internet will do just as well, in fact, it's even easier to find the info one may desire. Google is one's best friend in that regard. (Google Scholar)

On Free Trade and Jobs:
When one gets down to brass tacks, there are only so many options:

1. Do one want a job that, because one has it, makes things cost more to buy, thus offsetting the salary increase associated with that job?
2. Does one want to keep the job one has and enjoy lower prices?
3. Does one want to innovate and become a buyer of labor rather than a seller of it?
4. Does one want to
5. Does one want to have the government intervene and temporarily artificially create/boost a job market, knowing that while that may provide one with a short term "gravy train," the long term outcome of doing so is to defer the train's departure so that it's one's kids rather than oneself who must face the hardship?

Now one can choose what one wants from that list. I don't much mind which option one chooses. What I mind is one's choosing irrationally. For example, though I would never choose option five, I will respect folks who do and who in so doing also acknowledge that they are deferring the "pain" to their descendents. Indeed, that's what I expect politicians, true leaders, to simply tell the electorate the truth of the implications of the various options they have available to them. You see, while I recognize the majority of the electorate isn't economics savvy, I also know they aren't too stupid to make a good decision if and when they are objectively presented with the pros and cons of a situation.

So, of one wants to oppose NAFTA and other free trade deals, fine, but oppose it because one thinks prices are already too low and because one thinks one's standard of living is already high enough or too high, not by tossing about the untruth, one that most folks who've never studied economics won't realize is untrue because on the surface it looks correct, that free trade erodes the job base.

On Rational Voting and Choosing Leaders:
The public's favoring and opposing policies -- be they good or bad -- for the wrong reasons is why we have the perception problem we have now with our political leaders. Folks were lied to about what something would do and would not do. They took the word of their favorite person on the basis of perceptions -- because "they liked him," or because "they went with their gut," or something of that nature -- instead of confirming or refuting that what they were being told "held water." Then after "buying" it or rejecting it, as the case may be, the predicted and anticipated outcomes aren't the one's that occur. And then they have the audacity to complain when the burden rests on them...nobody but them failed to do the due diligence to find out what was accurate, plausible, probable, etc., and what was not.

Instead, what do too may folks/voters do? They make it clear that they want to be pandered to and not told the unpalatable truth. They demonstrate that they don't want to deal with the whole "story" of a thing/situation, they just want to "cut to the chase." Then when they get what they tacitly indicated they want, the pandering, the soundbites, and the "sugar coating," they complain. I say BS to that! Even though they didn't expressly ask for those things by name, their behavior indicated that's what they wanted. I don't care how bright or not bright the electorate is or is not, the folks who hold political office are bright enough to figure out what they can and must do to curry the electorate's favor.

Then there's the fact that for as much as Republicans and other conservatives like to sing Reagan's praises and align themselves with him as though doing so "makes everything right," the simple fact is that Reagan was every bit a "tax and spend" President as today's conservatives claim Democrats are. The thing is that most 30 and 40-somethings don't remember that he was because all they saw, and understandably to a point, as they were just kids then, was the glamorous President and his First Lady.

Reagan was a realist. He didn't want to raise taxes, but he knew he had to and so he did, but he lowered them first, and that's what he gets remembered for doing. Reagan, like all Democrats and Republicans before him, knew he needed to work with his opposers and that too is what he did. What he didn't do is encourage filibusters that shut down the government for weeks and create fear and angst among the electorate. That's just not good leadership, and it's certainly not the right, best or even okay way to run the United States. And yet there is a large plurality of Republicans that want to put a megalomaniac who's done exactly that into the White House!

On Republicans:
Well, I'm sorry, but that's the general line and themes I sense coming from more and more so-called conservatives and Republicans. Those people had no business being Republicans in the first place. The GOP is not and never was the party of the "common man." It's the party of the capitalists, both large and small, and it always has been. There's simple solution: if that's how one views things, be a Democrat, or be an independent and vote Democrat anyway. Democrat leaders have, since the late 1960s listened to, and will today listen to and respond to those sentiments. I can relate to cryin; like a stuck pig; I can respect them too. I just don't crying about that sort of thing as being consistent with Republican values and priorities. Maybe I'm wrong, but you tell me, what of it sounds Republican?

• I can't "make it" because of racism.
• I can't "make it" because big business makes it too hard.
• I can't "make it" because the legal system is rigged.
• I don't like the way the game works, but I'm going to make a point of being good at playing it, and I'm going to do it on my own.

Even if they could reach such a conclusion, what should they have done?

Demanded the whole story, both sides, or all sides, of it so they could vote based on a complete picture of the situation.

Are you attempting to make a transition from manufacturing buggies to manufacturing cars, or are you going from making cars to... what, online banking? Optometry? That requires a lot more retraining and aptitude.

The US was formed in the first place by displaced European workers (with a smattering of religious fanatics).

That's not really accurate. I'm sure there were some folks in that situation who made their way here, but the early Europeans who came here weren't of that ilk. They were merchants, officers, the 17th century equivalent of venture capitalists, traders and other users of the levers of economics. Sure laborers did come, but the nation wasn't founded by them. It was formed of, by and for capitalists, not laborers. It just so happens that back then being a capitalist meant being a farmer and landowner and today we think of farmers as laborers more so than as capitalists.

The death throes of slavery plunged the South into an economic collapse from which they still haven't recovered.

Yes, that's true. The thing there is that social forces were what formed the protectionist's walls to ensuring the recovery of the few to the disadvantage of the many. Too, the whole matter could have been resolved much sooner had those social ills not been allowed to persist.

 

[DGS49]

Find me a doctor or an architect or a CPA who self-identifies as being in the "service industry."

While literally true, it is not what the term means generally.

Teresa Heinz Kerry is, literally speaking, an 'African-American,' but she is not exactly what people think of when they hear the expression.

 

[320 Years of History]

Find me a doctor or an architect or a CPA who self-identifies as being in the "service industry."

While literally true, it is not what the term means generally.

Teresa Heinz Kerry is, literally speaking, an 'African-American,' but she is not exactly what people think of when they hear the expression.

I'm a management consultant, and every principal in my industry will tell you we provide business services and are in the services industry. You need only look at every partner at KPMG, E&Y, PWC, BDO, etc. Everyone of them will tell you they are providers of professional or business services. What else is that but a services industry. Half of IBM's revenue comes from the division it calls "IBM Global Services." What is that but being in the services industry? There is an SIC code for business services; it's code #73, and the range of codes from 70-89 are classified as "services."

So accountants and lawyers and whoever else you want to find can tell you whatever you think you want to hear, but the fact is that their industry is services.

What I am not in is the food service industry and I am not in the retail industry. Neither are a lot of other service professionals. I don't care what "services industry" used to mean. I care what it means now. Times change and I change with them because the alternative is to get left behind, and I don't care to allow that to happen to myself.

Changing with the times allows one to be part of what's going on in the country. Resisting change means that while one may have been part of what went on in America, one will not be part of what happens now or what is coming. Each of us can make that choice, and I'll not begrudge one their choice, but I know which one I'm making and I'm comfortable with it. I can't say the same is so for the folks who keep ranting about how "so and so has done them wrong" when by birth alone, in many instances, they had every opportunity to have made their situation different.

 

[Elvis Obama]

I'm not really aware of any trend where conservative pundits have changed their stances, though obviously they're all struggling to figure out the new terrain which has opened up under their feet.

Well, to be sure, it appears to me to be more a populist trend than a pundits' one.

NAFTA, also, was a tough read. It wasn't supposed to chase manufacturing jobs out of the US, according to its supporters. Seemed like nonsense to me then, and its proven to be nonsense, but how, exactly, were manufacturing employees supposed to reach that conclusion, given that different pundits predicted different results?

Red:
Free trade didn't chase jobs away. It lowers (or slows the rate of increase of) prices. The manufacturing jobs did go with the factories. I'm not about to say they did not. What I'm saying is that if one wants to boost the quantity of available jobs in a capitalist system, one must produce something to export, and that something needs to be produced at a lower cost than other folks are also able to produce it. Free trade is about lowering the prices of goods, not about creating or destroying jobs. "We trade because the imports we receive allow us to enjoy a higher standard of living."

The very organization that tries to help American businesses succeed in winning foreign contracts -- because that brings new money into U.S. pockets, rather than just moving existing U.S. money around among U.S. residents -- is also the one folks talk about getting rid of: the Export-Import Bank.

I don't have a problem with there being a strong, extensive and profitable manufacturing segment of the U.S. economy. I have a problem with forcing manufacturers to produce things in the U.S. that can as well be produced anywhere and the only thing that differs is the cost of the manual labor (direct and Indirect) used to produce it. What good will that do?

My answer is little to none. Who, other than perhaps U.S. consumers, will buy the U.S. made "widget" when lots of other manufacturers outside the U.S. can and will make a comparable "widget" and sell it for less and make a tidy profit doing so? How can that situation be good for American workers or American manufacturers?

Blue:
Let me answer your question directly here at the outset, because I found myself on something of a rant, but I intend to leave the rant there.

If you came in my day, the way to find out about pretty much anything was to go to one's local public library and research the topic. These days the Internet will do just as well, in fact, it's even easier to find the info one may desire. Google is one's best friend in that regard. (Google Scholar)

On Free Trade and Jobs:
When one gets down to brass tacks, there are only so many options:

1. Do one want a job that, because one has it, makes things cost more to buy, thus offsetting the salary increase associated with that job?
2. Does one want to keep the job one has and enjoy lower prices?
3. Does one want to innovate and become a buyer of labor rather than a seller of it?
4. Does one want to
5. Does one want to have the government intervene and temporarily artificially create/boost a job market, knowing that while that may provide one with a short term "gravy train," the long term outcome of doing so is to defer the train's departure so that it's one's kids rather than oneself who must face the hardship?

Now one can choose what one wants from that list. I don't much mind which option one chooses. What I mind is one's choosing irrationally. For example, though I would never choose option five, I will respect folks who do and who in so doing also acknowledge that they are deferring the "pain" to their descendents. Indeed, that's what I expect politicians, true leaders, to simply tell the electorate the truth of the implications of the various options they have available to them. You see, while I recognize the majority of the electorate isn't economics savvy, I also know they aren't too stupid to make a good decision if and when they are objectively presented with the pros and cons of a situation.

So, of one wants to oppose NAFTA and other free trade deals, fine, but oppose it because one thinks prices are already too low and because one thinks one's standard of living is already high enough or too high, not by tossing about the untruth, one that most folks who've never studied economics won't realize is untrue because on the surface it looks correct, that free trade erodes the job base.

On Rational Voting and Choosing Leaders:
The public's favoring and opposing policies -- be they good or bad -- for the wrong reasons is why we have the perception problem we have now with our political leaders. Folks were lied to about what something would do and would not do. They took the word of their favorite person on the basis of perceptions -- because "they liked him," or because "they went with their gut," or something of that nature -- instead of confirming or refuting that what they were being told "held water." Then after "buying" it or rejecting it, as the case may be, the predicted and anticipated outcomes aren't the one's that occur. And then they have the audacity to complain when the burden rests on them...nobody but them failed to do the due diligence to find out what was accurate, plausible, probable, etc., and what was not.

Instead, what do too may folks/voters do? They make it clear that they want to be pandered to and not told the unpalatable truth. They demonstrate that they don't want to deal with the whole "story" of a thing/situation, they just want to "cut to the chase." Then when they get what they tacitly indicated they want, the pandering, the soundbites, and the "sugar coating," they complain. I say BS to that! Even though they didn't expressly ask for those things by name, their behavior indicated that's what they wanted. I don't care how bright or not bright the electorate is or is not, the folks who hold political office are bright enough to figure out what they can and must do to curry the electorate's favor.

Then there's the fact that for as much as Republicans and other conservatives like to sing Reagan's praises and align themselves with him as though doing so "makes everything right," the simple fact is that Reagan was every bit a "tax and spend" President as today's conservatives claim Democrats are. The thing is that most 30 and 40-somethings don't remember that he was because all they saw, and understandably to a point, as they were just kids then, was the glamorous President and his First Lady.

Reagan was a realist. He didn't want to raise taxes, but he knew he had to and so he did, but he lowered them first, and that's what he gets remembered for doing. Reagan, like all Democrats and Republicans before him, knew he needed to work with his opposers and that too is what he did. What he didn't do is encourage filibusters that shut down the government for weeks and create fear and angst among the electorate. That's just not good leadership, and it's certainly not the right, best or even okay way to run the United States. And yet there is a large plurality of Republicans that want to put a megalomaniac who's done exactly that into the White House!

On Republicans:
Well, I'm sorry, but that's the general line and themes I sense coming from more and more so-called conservatives and Republicans. Those people had no business being Republicans in the first place. The GOP is not and never was the party of the "common man." It's the party of the capitalists, both large and small, and it always has been. There's simple solution: if that's how one views things, be a Democrat, or be an independent and vote Democrat anyway. Democrat leaders have, since the late 1960s listened to, and will today listen to and respond to those sentiments. I can relate to cryin; like a stuck pig; I can respect them too. I just don't crying about that sort of thing as being consistent with Republican values and priorities. Maybe I'm wrong, but you tell me, what of it sounds Republican?

• I can't "make it" because of racism.
• I can't "make it" because big business makes it too hard.
• I can't "make it" because the legal system is rigged.
• I don't like the way the game works, but I'm going to make a point of being good at playing it, and I'm going to do it on my own.

Even if they could reach such a conclusion, what should they have done?

Demanded the whole story, both sides, or all sides, of it so they could vote based on a complete picture of the situation.

Are you attempting to make a transition from manufacturing buggies to manufacturing cars, or are you going from making cars to... what, online banking? Optometry? That requires a lot more retraining and aptitude.

The US was formed in the first place by displaced European workers (with a smattering of religious fanatics).

That's not really accurate. I'm sure there were some folks in that situation who made their way here, but the early Europeans who came here weren't of that ilk. They were merchants, officers, the 17th century equivalent of venture capitalists, traders and other users of the levers of economics. Sure laborers did come, but the nation wasn't founded by them. It was formed of, by and for capitalists, not laborers. It just so happens that back then being a capitalist meant being a farmer and landowner and today we think of farmers as laborers more so than as capitalists.

The death throes of slavery plunged the South into an economic collapse from which they still haven't recovered.

Yes, that's true. The thing there is that social forces were what formed the protectionist's walls to ensuring the recovery of the few to the disadvantage of the many. Too, the whole matter could have been resolved much sooner had those social ills not been allowed to persist.

On Republicans:
Well, I'm sorry, but that's the general line and themes I sense coming from more and more so-called conservatives and Republicans. Those people had no business being Republicans in the first place. The GOP is not and never was the party of the "common man." It's the party of the capitalists, both large and small, and it always has been. There's simple solution: if that's how one views things, be a Democrat, or be an independent and vote Democrat anyway. Democrat leaders have, since the late 1960s listened to, and will today listen to and respond to those sentiments. I can relate to cryin; like a stuck pig; I can respect them too. I just don't crying about that sort of thing as being consistent with Republican values and priorities. Maybe I'm wrong, but you tell me, what of it sounds Republican?

• I can't "make it" because of racism.
• I can't "make it" because big business makes it too hard.
• I can't "make it" because the legal system is rigged.
• I don't like the way the game works, but I'm going to make a point of being good at playing it, and I'm going to do it on my own.

Political parties are coalitions of convenience. What does libertarianism have to do with neo-conservatism? Strange bedfellows indeed. Such coalitions are inherently fragile, We're witnessing one falling apart. Seemingly. Some will tell you no, it's just a seasonal adjustment due to the blah, blah, blah, but the roots are strong! We've made these coalitions into a business, a huge corporation, really. We're seeing the consequences of the development of a professional political class, something which is a fairly new phenomenon in American political life. Professional politicians are only a part of these corporations. Professional pundits and other members of the professional political class all are responding to their meal ticket being threatened.

No one will ever abandon Horatio Alger, whether Republican or Democrat. They'll just abandon all principles and reduce Horatio Alger to a suit they can don before the right crowd. Mitt Romney, in 2012, tried to sell himself as a self-made man. When he did that I found out that it was possible to laugh and be made physically nauseous at the same time. Trump is trying the same nonsense with his "small million dollar loan" from his father.

So that's the pandering professional political class. What about the rank and file party members they claim to represent? What are their principles? Do they really consider themselves the last bastion of morality and integrity? Based on what? If so, it's all self-deluded, self-congratulatory nonsense. No Americans fail to take advantage of any and all social safety net programs. Period. Republican or Democrat means nothing. Ideology also means nothing. Real human beings do not consult party platforms to determine what to think or feel. Real human beings are not what the professional politicians try to make them out to be. "America is a center right country", the pols will claim, "and I have a mandate from them to make this country over into a pure conservative wonderland!".

I don't buy it. I don't buy that conservatives have family values and progressives do not. I don't buy that conservatives are self-reliant and progressives have no pride in accomplishment. I don't buy that there is such a thing as conservative or progressive. They're fictions, propped up by the professional political class to create a rationale for their acceptance as leaders. "I stand for you," they scream, "the people with real values!". Most people are in the middle of the political spectrum, neither conservative nor progressive. They lean right on some issues and left on others.

Income inequality has nothing to do with ideology. The management of interest rates and taxation are vital to maintaining the health of an economic system. Greed is real. It always has been real and it always will be real, and it is inherently irrational. If government is not a rational counter-balance to the rapacious, acquisitive drives of a certain percentage of the wealthy, the system becomes imbalanced and breaks down. That's what is happening now. Business restructured in the wake of the last economic collapse, emphasizing automation and part-time work, and the result has been an ever increasing instability in the middle class. Education costs has become an absurd burden and the commitment we can expect from the companies we work for has been shrinking. What has this got to do with ideology? Nothing. If you are aware of this, angry about this and seek to redress this situation, this should not threaten your conservative credentials. If it does, then you are asking too high a price for being a conservative.

Individual businesses are not responsible for considering the welfare of the country as a whole, and international corporations have no loyalty to America or the American people. It's the government that's supposed to fill that role and they don't. Neither Democrat nor Republican. Being angry about that is not an abandonment of conservative or Republican principles. Expecting a fair shake is not an abandonment of ideological principles.

The US was formed in the first place by displaced European workers (with a smattering of religious fanatics).

That's not really accurate. I'm sure there were some folks in that situation who made their way here, but the early Europeans who came here weren't of that ilk. They were merchants, officers, the 17th century equivalent of venture capitalists, traders and other users of the levers of economics. Sure laborers did come, but the nation wasn't founded by them. It was formed of, by and for capitalists, not laborers. It just so happens that back then being a capitalist meant being a farmer and landowner and today we think of farmers as laborers more so than as capitalists.

LOL. Well, displaced workers were not being given charters, that's for sure. Certainly the trading companies that were established were businesses, and the very existence of the colonies was predicated on these companies being profitable. That having been said, the vast majority of the people who answered the call of the colonies for labor, once their viability had been established, those who filled the ranks of "we the people", and who could truly be said to have built this country, were displaced Irish fleeing the potato famine and displaced former serfs who had been thrown off their land during the enclosures movement so that "sheep may safely graze". They might not have established the first footholds, but they're the ones who opened this country up, and filled it up. Indentured servants with seven year contracts who died within three.

 

[Dragonlady]

For the moment I will assume you are not full of schidt, and take you seriously. "Service industry jobs," generally speaking, suck. The pay is terrible, the hours are irregular, the benefits are near non-existent, and unions are rare. The infamous SEIU represents only the service employees who are in industries where competition is non-existent. Manufacturing jobs historically have been well-paying, stable, and usually sufficient to maintain a middle-class lifestyle. And they ACTUALLY PRODUCE SOMETHING, which is a plus.

Other than working for government or in the medical industry, or a public utility, NOBODY IN THEIR RIGHT MIND would aspire to work in the Service Industry. And if you are in fact an executive in the service industry, your compensation is probably enhanced by the exploitation of underlings working for minimum wage - people who will get out of the Service Industry at their earliest opportunity.

Not all "service industry" jobs are low-paying, minimum wage jobs. "Service industry" doesn't just mean waiting tables, working for McDonalds, or cleaning offices. Banking, law, and medicine are service industries.

 

[Dragonlady]

I think that many of the displaced workers who vote Republican are doing so because they've bought into the lies of the conservative media, who routinely tell them:

- all social programs are "communist"
- lowering taxes creates jobs (it doesn't)
- Increasing the minimum wage kills jobs (it doesn't)
- Democrats want to increase your dependence on government
- Obama is a radical left-wing, socialist

All of these things are lies, but lies told often enough become the new "truth". Republicans have learned this lesson well and repeat the same lies endlessly. Over 1/3 of Republican voters still believe that Obama was born in Kenya, in spite of that lie being thoroughly debunked. Obama is about as conservative as Reagan, who was considered a flaming radical right-winger in the 70's, although he seems like a moderate compared to today's conservatives.

It doesn't help that the Democrats have ceased to be the party of the working man. Bill Clinton knew he couldn't get elected as a left-wing liberal, so he deliberately moved to centre right, and actually instituted a number of Chicago School right-wing policies welfare and social programs. Unions which did much in creating the American middle class, continued to be marginalized under Clinton.

Abandoned by politicians from both parties, the working class is abandoning the politicians who screwed them over and flocking to Trump and Sanders.