Why Workers in Red States Vote Against Their Economic Self-Interest

[zeke]

Seems to me that the executives at Walmart are the ones that should be grateful. They are able to make a great salary while the rest of us subsidize their workforce. And the executives have assholes like you telling anyone who will listen that it is a good thing that Walmart employees are able to qualify for some sort of welfare.

What the **** is wrong with you?

There are several reasons I won't shop at a Walmart. Wages are one. Junk merchandise made in China is another. And people like you supporting Walmart activities are the biggest reason. **** you and the walmart you rode in on.

Wait a minute. What's your position on welfare? Isn't it you who is supporting Walmart? The 'sides' on this debate just get "curiouser and curiouser".

Wait two minutes. My position on welfare? Is that people working a full time job should be earning enough money that they don't qualify for welfare at any level.

So either wages have to go up or the threshold for qualifying for welfare has to go down.

Which way would you support (in an effort to get some people off welfare?)

 

[dblack]

Seems to me that the executives at Walmart are the ones that should be grateful. They are able to make a great salary while the rest of us subsidize their workforce. And the executives have assholes like you telling anyone who will listen that it is a good thing that Walmart employees are able to qualify for some sort of welfare.

What the **** is wrong with you?

There are several reasons I won't shop at a Walmart. Wages are one. Junk merchandise made in China is another. And people like you supporting Walmart activities are the biggest reason. **** you and the walmart you rode in on.

Wait a minute. What's your position on welfare? Isn't it you who is supporting Walmart? The 'sides' on this debate just get "curiouser and curiouser".

Wait two minutes. My position on welfare? Is that people working a full time job should be earning enough money that they don't qualify for welfare at any level.

So either wages have to go up or the threshold for qualifying for welfare has to go down.

Which way would you support (in an effort to get some people off welfare?)

Well, I'm opposed to the welfare state across the board because of the reasons you folks are just beginning to understand - that in reality it's a support system to subsidize the banksters, to keep the warfare/welfare machine humming along, to keep the riffraff placated and in their place and the wheels of industry humming at peak efficiency. You're all on the same 'team' as far as I'm concerned.

 

[natstew]

There is nothing wrong with having moral principles that don't put yourself over other people. The problem is really that there is an assumed morality to capitalism that ignores the reality because morality is established through laws as opposed to applied reason. When someone is not good at applying reason a strict legal framework for morality is often needed but that still leaves someone to establish the rules.

Reagan actually went a long way to establishing a lot of these laws in the minds of conservatives concerning the economy. His success was so complete that they will go to great lengths to ignore reality, including the reality of the Reagan administration. Just try bringing up the increase of debt that happened under Reagan and you will see the faithful scramble to make excuses and dismiss the reality.

Events under Reagan have very little to do with today's economic realities. Why don't you just say, "Bbbb...Bushy."

Still blaming Bush I see. Bush inherited the Clinton recession. In spite of 911 and katrina the Republican Congress and Bush policies were bringing us out of the Clinton Recession until

the Democrats took over the Congress in 2007 and that's when the Democrat recession started. Obama took Office on a mission to "transform the U.S. into some kind of Marxist socialism and his DICTATES has only served to worsen the Democrat's recession. Yes, I said DICTATES, he is the Dictator and the Democrat controlled Congress rubber stamps his Dictates.

You Obamaites are really some special kind of stupid!!

 

[Nyvin]

There is nothing wrong with having moral principles that don't put yourself over other people. The problem is really that there is an assumed morality to capitalism that ignores the reality because morality is established through laws as opposed to applied reason. When someone is not good at applying reason a strict legal framework for morality is often needed but that still leaves someone to establish the rules.

Reagan actually went a long way to establishing a lot of these laws in the minds of conservatives concerning the economy. His success was so complete that they will go to great lengths to ignore reality, including the reality of the Reagan administration. Just try bringing up the increase of debt that happened under Reagan and you will see the faithful scramble to make excuses and dismiss the reality.

Events under Reagan have very little to do with today's economic realities. Why don't you just say, "Bbbb...Bushy."

Still blaming Bush I see. Bush inherited the Clinton recession. In spite of 911 and katrina the Republican Congress and Bush policies were bringing us out of the Clinton Recession until

the Democrats took over the Congress in 2007 and that's when the Democrat recession started. Obama took Office on a mission to "transform the U.S. into some kind of Marxist socialism and his DICTATES has only served to worsen the Democrat's recession. Yes, I said DICTATES, he is the Dictator and the Democrat controlled Congress rubber stamps his Dictates.

You Obamaites are really some special kind of stupid!!

Clinton Recession??? Clinton ended his presidency with a federal surplus and some of the fastest, largest growth in the last 30 years! The dot.com recession went from early 2002 to late 2003, and never actually was a recession since there weren't two consecutive quarters of negative growth.

 

[kaz]

Seems to me that the executives at Walmart are the ones that should be grateful. They are able to make a great salary while the rest of us subsidize their workforce. And the executives have assholes like you telling anyone who will listen that it is a good thing that Walmart employees are able to qualify for some sort of welfare.

What the **** is wrong with you?

There are several reasons I won't shop at a Walmart. Wages are one. Junk merchandise made in China is another. And people like you supporting Walmart activities are the biggest reason. **** you and the walmart you rode in on.

Wait a minute. What's your position on welfare? Isn't it you who is supporting Walmart? The 'sides' on this debate just get "curiouser and curiouser".

Wait two minutes. My position on welfare? Is that people working a full time job should be earning enough money that they don't qualify for welfare at any level.

So either wages have to go up or the threshold for qualifying for welfare has to go down.

Which way would you support (in an effort to get some people off welfare?)

So removing your spin, what you are against is people not worth high enough wages to live on working. Very liberal of you, not.

 

[kaz]

Events under Reagan have very little to do with today's economic realities. Why don't you just say, "Bbbb...Bushy."

Still blaming Bush I see. Bush inherited the Clinton recession. In spite of 911 and katrina the Republican Congress and Bush policies were bringing us out of the Clinton Recession until

the Democrats took over the Congress in 2007 and that's when the Democrat recession started. Obama took Office on a mission to "transform the U.S. into some kind of Marxist socialism and his DICTATES has only served to worsen the Democrat's recession. Yes, I said DICTATES, he is the Dictator and the Democrat controlled Congress rubber stamps his Dictates.

You Obamaites are really some special kind of stupid!!

Clinton Recession??? Clinton ended his presidency with a federal surplus and some of the fastest, largest growth in the last 30 years! The dot.com recession went from early 2002 to late 2003, and never actually was a recession since there weren't two consecutive quarters of negative growth.

Actually, we had been in a recession the last six months of his presidency.

I do like how you give credit to an economic boom that started under ... Reagan ... to Clinton. Talk about the tail wagging the dog. Are you thinking in the 80s they anticipated Clinton's arrival? That's why the market and the economy grew so fast?

 

[Dot Com]

red states end up having their workers on federal social welfare because their wages are so low. Its called a stealth tax repubs

 

[Unkotare]

Events under Reagan have very little to do with today's economic realities. Why don't you just say, "Bbbb...Bushy."

Still blaming Bush I see. Bush inherited the Clinton recession. In spite of 911 and katrina the Republican Congress and Bush policies were bringing us out of the Clinton Recession until

the Democrats took over the Congress in 2007 and that's when the Democrat recession started. Obama took Office on a mission to "transform the U.S. into some kind of Marxist socialism and his DICTATES has only served to worsen the Democrat's recession. Yes, I said DICTATES, he is the Dictator and the Democrat controlled Congress rubber stamps his Dictates.

You Obamaites are really some special kind of stupid!!

Clinton Recession??? Clinton ended his presidency with a federal surplus and some of the fastest, largest growth in the last 30 years! The dot.com recession went from early 2002 to late 2003, and never actually was a recession since there weren't two consecutive quarters of negative growth.

Bush inherited Clinton's recession - CNN iReport

 

[zeke]

Wait a minute. What's your position on welfare? Isn't it you who is supporting Walmart? The 'sides' on this debate just get "curiouser and curiouser".

Wait two minutes. My position on welfare? Is that people working a full time job should be earning enough money that they don't qualify for welfare at any level.

So either wages have to go up or the threshold for qualifying for welfare has to go down.

Which way would you support (in an effort to get some people off welfare?)

So removing your spin, what you are against is people not worth high enough wages to live on working. Very liberal of you, not.

That is the best non nonsensical sentence I have ever seen you write. Or vomit out your fingers. Or just have run on shits all over the board. Or whatever it is you do.


you wrote; " (what) you are against is people not worth high enough wages to live on working."

What the **** does that even say???

 

[kaz]

Wait two minutes. My position on welfare? Is that people working a full time job should be earning enough money that they don't qualify for welfare at any level.

So either wages have to go up or the threshold for qualifying for welfare has to go down.

Which way would you support (in an effort to get some people off welfare?)

So removing your spin, what you are against is people not worth high enough wages to live on working. Very liberal of you, not.

That is the best non nonsensical sentence I have ever seen you write. Or vomit out your fingers. Or just have run on shits all over the board. Or whatever it is you do.


you wrote; " (what) you are against is people not worth high enough wages to live on working."

What the **** does that even say???

LOL, can't read a double negative? It says, you want people who aren't worth enough to an employer to pay enough to live to be prohibited with government guns from getting any job. It's a pathetic position for you to take. The only way for them to improve their skills to support themselves is to get a job. How are they going to do that if you make it illegal to for them to work? No one will pay them to work for more than they are worth. We will do without or hire better workers.

I'm a business owner. Two of my employees get government assistance. I have a services firm, most people are well paid, but I do have some lower end workers to do the more menial tasks so my better paid workers can focus on the more challenging work. If you force me to raise their pay so they earn enough to live without it, I will fire them both tomorrow and replace them with better employees who can do more since you're forcing me to pay more. BTW, one makes $9.50 and the other $11.50, they are not minimum wage. I pay them both well compared to what they could get from another employer. So what say you, liberal? If it were up to you, should I fire them? Obviously I'm not going to do it, you're reality challenged. However, it is a real situation with real lives involved. Would you actually implement your idiotic ideology and have all the employers like me trim their payrolls of their low end workers so they have no job at all?

 

[zeke]

So removing your spin, what you are against is people not worth high enough wages to live on working. Very liberal of you, not.

That is the best non nonsensical sentence I have ever seen you write. Or vomit out your fingers. Or just have run on shits all over the board. Or whatever it is you do.


you wrote; " (what) you are against is people not worth high enough wages to live on working."

What the **** does that even say???

LOL, can't read a double negative? It says, you want people who aren't worth enough to an employer to pay enough to live to be prohibited with government guns from getting any job. It's a pathetic position for you to take. The only way for them to improve their skills to support themselves is to get a job. How are they going to do that if you make it illegal to for them to work? No one will pay them to work for more than they are worth. We will do without or hire better workers.

I'm a business owner. Two of my employees get government assistance. I have a services firm, most people are well paid, but I do have some lower end workers to do the more menial tasks so my better paid workers can focus on the more challenging work. If you force me to raise their pay so they earn enough to live without it, I will fire them both tomorrow and replace them with better employees who can do more since you're forcing me to pay more. BTW, one makes $9.50 and the other $11.50, they are not minimum wage. I pay them both well compared to what they could get from another employer. So what say you, liberal? If it were up to you, should I fire them? Obviously I'm not going to do it, you're reality challenged. However, it is a real situation with real lives involved. Would you actually implement your idiotic ideology and have all the employers like me trim their payrolls of their low end workers so they have no job at all?

Yea, I read your "double negative". It made as little sense the second time as the first.

But why do you run a charity business? Your words. You employ people (even at a low wage) that are not performing a meaningful service to your business.

I say that because you would fire them if you had to pay more in minimum wage. But then, you are already paying them more than minimum wage.

So why the charity? Hell they got government assistance. Just cut their pay and let the rest of us subsidize them at an ever higher level.

Then you will make more money. Right? I read here all the time that employers such as yourself are not in business to provide jobs. You are in business to make money.

SO why are you paying more than necessary?

But hey, I'll support ( for sake of argument) the republican position that welfare makes people lazy. And people making minimum wage and collecting SNAP and such must be really lazy or they wouldn't be paid minimum wage. At least that is what the Rethugs say. You a Republican?

I say cut the welfare qualifying income to 10 k. You make more than 10k a year, no government benefits for you.

Lets get rid of the minimum wage all together. You like that idea? More profit for you.


I think that the Republicans should see the true result of the actions and policies they espouse.

Riots. And hunger. More homelessness. It's all good.

 

[kaz]

That is the best non nonsensical sentence I have ever seen you write. Or vomit out your fingers. Or just have run on shits all over the board. Or whatever it is you do.


you wrote; " (what) you are against is people not worth high enough wages to live on working."

What the **** does that even say???

LOL, can't read a double negative? It says, you want people who aren't worth enough to an employer to pay enough to live to be prohibited with government guns from getting any job. It's a pathetic position for you to take. The only way for them to improve their skills to support themselves is to get a job. How are they going to do that if you make it illegal to for them to work? No one will pay them to work for more than they are worth. We will do without or hire better workers.

I'm a business owner. Two of my employees get government assistance. I have a services firm, most people are well paid, but I do have some lower end workers to do the more menial tasks so my better paid workers can focus on the more challenging work. If you force me to raise their pay so they earn enough to live without it, I will fire them both tomorrow and replace them with better employees who can do more since you're forcing me to pay more. BTW, one makes $9.50 and the other $11.50, they are not minimum wage. I pay them both well compared to what they could get from another employer. So what say you, liberal? If it were up to you, should I fire them? Obviously I'm not going to do it, you're reality challenged. However, it is a real situation with real lives involved. Would you actually implement your idiotic ideology and have all the employers like me trim their payrolls of their low end workers so they have no job at all?

Yea, I read your "double negative". It made as little sense the second time as the first.

But why do you run a charity business? Your words. You employ people (even at a low wage) that are not performing a meaningful service to your business.

I say that because you would fire them if you had to pay more in minimum wage. But then, you are already paying them more than minimum wage.

So why the charity? Hell they got government assistance. Just cut their pay and let the rest of us subsidize them at an ever higher level.

Then you will make more money. Right? I read here all the time that employers such as yourself are not in business to provide jobs. You are in business to make money.

SO why are you paying more than necessary?

But hey, I'll support ( for sake of argument) the republican position that welfare makes people lazy. And people making minimum wage and collecting SNAP and such must be really lazy or they wouldn't be paid minimum wage. At least that is what the Rethugs say. You a Republican?

No, I'm a libertarian. And reading comprehension isn't your bag. I didn't say any of the crap you made up. I pay them what they are worth to me. If you forced me to pay them more, that is not worth it to me, which is why I would fire them and upgrade them. It was actually pretty clear. I also said they do the more menial work in our office. They both have some skills, which is why they make more than minimum wage. But they are both fully replaceable and I would not pay them more. If I had to pay more for those positions, I would replace them, but I would upgrade the skills and give the better employees more work so they do more for the higher pay. Seriously, you didn't grasp that?

I say cut the welfare qualifying income to 10 k. You make more than 10k a year, no government benefits for you.

Lets get rid of the minimum wage all together. You like that idea? More profit for you.


I think that the Republicans should see the true result of the actions and policies they espouse.

Riots. And hunger. More homelessness. It's all good.

So random thoughts aside, what about answering the question? I am fine with what I pay them, but if you forced me to pay more, enough for them to live without government benefits, then I would fire them rather than pay more, they aren't worth more. So, should I fire them or keep paying them and let them go to government for whatever else they "need" to live?

 

[dblack]

What I find ironic is that, even though most advocates refuse to recognize the fact, minimum wage laws actually limit the choices of job-seekers. These laws are telling them, that if they can't convince an employer that their labor is worth some specified minimum, they're not allowed to work. It's essentially the union ethos, enforced by law, wherein 'scabs' and anyone willing to work for less than the union wage, is the enemy.

 

[rdean]

In a nutshell...no pun intended?

Hilarious.

Disgusting, like YOU.

Disgusting is the FACT that poor whites in the Republican base vote those into office who redistribute the wealth of the nation to the top 1% because they feel they are also "millionaires". Only, "millionaires without funds". Sadly, the very rich they idolize see them as mere "trash".

 

[bayoubill]

For years, political scientists have wondered why so many poor and working-class citizens of so-called “red” states vote against their economic self-interest.
The wages of production workers have been dropping for 30 years, adjusted for inflation, and their economic security has disappeared. A smaller share of working-age Americans hold jobs today than at any time in more than three decades.
For them, a job is precious — sometimes even more precious than a safe workplace or safe drinking water.
This is especially true in poorer regions of the country like West Virginia and through much of Southern and rural America, where the old working class has been voting Republican. Guns, abortion and race are part of the explanation. But don’t overlook economic anxieties that translate into a willingness to vote for whatever it is that industry wants.
This may explain why Republican officials who have been casting their votes against unions, against expanding Medicaid, against raising the minimum wage, against extended unemployment insurance, and against jobs bills that would put people to work, continue to be elected and re-elected.
They obviously have the support of corporate patrons who want to keep unemployment high and workers insecure because a pliant working class helps their bottom lines.

As someone who has lived in the south for the past half of my life it always puzzled me why people in this region always vote against their self interests and defend the same people who exploit them . I attribute it to a plantation mentality ...

It is indeed amazing that, in this day and age, there are still some righteous and honorable folks who refuse to ask for something for nothing...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

For years, political scientists have wondered why so many poor and working-class citizens of so-called “red” states vote against their economic self-interest.
The wages of production workers have been dropping for 30 years, adjusted for inflation, and their economic security has disappeared. A smaller share of working-age Americans hold jobs today than at any time in more than three decades.
For them, a job is precious — sometimes even more precious than a safe workplace or safe drinking water.
This is especially true in poorer regions of the country like West Virginia and through much of Southern and rural America, where the old working class has been voting Republican. Guns, abortion and race are part of the explanation. But don’t overlook economic anxieties that translate into a willingness to vote for whatever it is that industry wants.
This may explain why Republican officials who have been casting their votes against unions, against expanding Medicaid, against raising the minimum wage, against extended unemployment insurance, and against jobs bills that would put people to work, continue to be elected and re-elected.
They obviously have the support of corporate patrons who want to keep unemployment high and workers insecure because a pliant working class helps their bottom lines.

As someone who has lived in the south for the past half of my life it always puzzled me why people in this region always vote against their self interests and defend the same people who exploit them . I attribute it to a plantation mentality ...

For years a bunch of idiots have wondered why intelligent people put the needs of the many above their own needs. Simple answer, they are smart enough to care more about the future than their personal pleasure. The reason you don't understand that is because you are a selfish asshole.

 

[KNB]

For years, political scientists have wondered why so many poor and working-class citizens of so-called “red” states vote against their economic self-interest.
The wages of production workers have been dropping for 30 years, adjusted for inflation, and their economic security has disappeared. A smaller share of working-age Americans hold jobs today than at any time in more than three decades.
For them, a job is precious — sometimes even more precious than a safe workplace or safe drinking water.
This is especially true in poorer regions of the country like West Virginia and through much of Southern and rural America, where the old working class has been voting Republican. Guns, abortion and race are part of the explanation. But don’t overlook economic anxieties that translate into a willingness to vote for whatever it is that industry wants.
This may explain why Republican officials who have been casting their votes against unions, against expanding Medicaid, against raising the minimum wage, against extended unemployment insurance, and against jobs bills that would put people to work, continue to be elected and re-elected.
They obviously have the support of corporate patrons who want to keep unemployment high and workers insecure because a pliant working class helps their bottom lines.

As someone who has lived in the south for the past half of my life it always puzzled me why people in this region always vote against their self interests and defend the same people who exploit them . I attribute it to a plantation mentality ...

For years a bunch of idiots have wondered why intelligent people put the needs of the many above their own needs. Simple answer, they are smart enough to care more about the future than their personal pleasure. The reason you don't understand that is because you are a selfish asshole.

Are you implying that the GOP is full of smart people who care about the future? Conservative Christians who deny evolution and the Greenhouse Effect are smart people concerned for the future? Please elaborate.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

For years, political scientists have wondered why so many poor and working-class citizens of so-called “red” states vote against their economic self-interest.
The wages of production workers have been dropping for 30 years, adjusted for inflation, and their economic security has disappeared. A smaller share of working-age Americans hold jobs today than at any time in more than three decades.
For them, a job is precious — sometimes even more precious than a safe workplace or safe drinking water.
This is especially true in poorer regions of the country like West Virginia and through much of Southern and rural America, where the old working class has been voting Republican. Guns, abortion and race are part of the explanation. But don’t overlook economic anxieties that translate into a willingness to vote for whatever it is that industry wants.
This may explain why Republican officials who have been casting their votes against unions, against expanding Medicaid, against raising the minimum wage, against extended unemployment insurance, and against jobs bills that would put people to work, continue to be elected and re-elected.
They obviously have the support of corporate patrons who want to keep unemployment high and workers insecure because a pliant working class helps their bottom lines.

As someone who has lived in the south for the past half of my life it always puzzled me why people in this region always vote against their self interests and defend the same people who exploit them . I attribute it to a plantation mentality ...

For years a bunch of idiots have wondered why intelligent people put the needs of the many above their own needs. Simple answer, they are smart enough to care more about the future than their personal pleasure. The reason you don't understand that is because you are a selfish asshole.

Are you implying that the GOP is full of smart people who care about the future? Conservative Christians who deny evolution and the Greenhouse Effect are smart people concerned for the future? Please elaborate.

I am pretty sure I didn't say that because, unlike you, I am smart enough to know that there are more than two choices.

 

[KNB]

More than two choices for what? You quoted the opening and rebutted that there are smart people who care about the future, implying that only imbeciles support the notion that red state voters defend economic policies that create so many poor people.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

More than two choices for what? You quoted the opening and rebutted that there are smart people who care about the future, implying that only imbeciles support the notion that red state voters defend economic policies that create so many poor people.

You got something right after all, only imbeciles think the government creates poor people.