
What So Many People Don’t Get About the U.S. Working Class - riqbal
https://hbr.org/2016/11/what-so-many-people-dont-get-about-the-u-s-working-class
======
aclimatt
This is an excellent article. It opens up the minds of people who many on the
coasts have struggled to empathize with in light of Tuesday.

In talking about economic policies, and free trade deals that supposedly
shipped jobs off to China, I wish the article (and more importantly
politicans) would emphasize the importance of technology being the driver
behind manufacturing job loss.

It's only a matter of time before robots replace most manufacturing jobs. The
only reason they haven't full-scale yet is that wages in China are still too
low to make it cost effective (but that's changing).

Otto just delivered the first self-driving truck shipment. In a few short
years, the most common job in what was it, 30 or so states? It'll be all but
gone.

The article hit the nail on the head with having working class economic policy
being front and center on the campaign, not bathrooms. But a tariff on Chinese
exports ain't it. Nobody is bringing steel back to Youngstown, and though
Clinton touched on this a little bit (the renewable energy jobs for example),
creating new jobs that are actually here to stay for a while -- whatever they
may be (while unfortunately not seeming elite and professional) -- is the only
message the Democrats can deliver if they want to win office again.

~~~
byuu
Indeed. And when all those truckers lose their jobs, that's not just going to
affect their lives. They're going to be retraining and competing for _your_
jobs next. And they don't have to be nearly as skilled as you, if they're
willing to do the work for half the cost. Which they will be, because they'll
be desperate to feed their families. And thankfully for employers, us
programmers have been doing our best to make programming easier and easier.
The people looking to take our jobs will certainly appreciate that.

We need to start talking about a post-work economy and how that will work.
Because that's going to happen. If automation pushes us there without the
appropriate policies in place, it is going to be absolutely devastating.

And as this article touched on, the working-class generation is going to be
deeply troubled by the idea of _anyone_ getting _anything_ without working
hard for it. The concept of "if you don't work, you don't eat" is deeply
ingrained into their psyches. So it is going to be a very uphill battle.

~~~
lamontcg
I tend to doubt that truckers will turn into programmers. If anything
programming is going to continue to be more about burning out college grads,
and it'll be difficult for 40 year old established programmers to find work,
much less 40 year old retrained truckers--even at half the cost.

At any rate, that would be the optimistic viewpoint, that they could actually
get retrained and get jobs and compete for wages. What is likely to happen is
that they'll have extreme difficulty finding any work, the income gaps will
widen and there'll be even more disaffected workers.

~~~
inimino
> programming is going to continue to be more about burning out college grads

This is the product of a particular culture that goes back to how the places
currently employing the most programmers are currently funded. When the bubble
bursts, the macho candle-at-both-ends death march bullshit will give way to
professionalism.

There also will probably be a glut of programmers by then so it doesn't help
the hypothetical retrained truckers.

------
byuu
> Democrats? They remain obsessed with cultural issues. I fully understand why
> transgender bathrooms are important, but I also understand why progressives’
> obsession with prioritizing cultural issues infuriates many Americans whose
> chief concerns are economic.

I'm sorry, but this cuts both ways.

The Republican primary issues are social as well. Is the author forgetting
that GWB won in 2004 on the back of marriage discrimination amendments in key
battleground states like Ohio to entice Republican voter turnout?

I don't believe the shrewd Republican politicians at the top care about social
issues anymore than the top Democrats care about reigning in Wall Street. But
that is definitely how they energize their base for voter turnout. Meaning,
it's what the voters care about.

And this was the nastiest election I've seen in my lifetime by far for baiting
with all those buzzwords the left is being derided for using now. But if the
shoe fits. No, I don't believe all Trump voters are racists, bigots, or
xenophobes. But I do believe there is a line in the sand when it comes to
respect and dignity for _all_ Americans, and Trump didn't just step over it,
he flew his private jet across it. I don't even believe Trump really meant all
of what he siad, but he played his base like a fiddle.

If social issues aren't what's really important, and it's economic issues that
won, then they could have had a _sweeping_ landslide victory by adopting a
more inclusive platform that didn't promise to stack the Supreme Court to
overturn Roe v Wade and Obergefell v Hodges. One that didn't promise to undo
all transgender protection executive orders. One that didn't suggest a
registry for all Muslims and to ban refugees. One that didn't run on building
a wall to keep out immigrants. He could have nominated a VP that _didn 't_
believe in conversion therapy for gay teens, one that _didn 't_ enact the gay
version of Jim Crow laws in Indiana.

If they had stuck to the economic issues: oppose trade agreements that only
benefit the rich, give tax cuts primarily to the working class, provide good-
paying infrastructure jobs, etc ... they would have won 'bigly.' I would have
loved to vote against Clinton for such an economy-first party. As would most
of the disenfranchised Bernie Sanders voters.

But I can't do that when these social wedge issues _directly_ affect my own
life (he's talking about overturning _my_ marriage) and that of my friends in
the transgender community. Basic fairness and equality is much more important
to me than my paycheck size.

I'm sorry to play this card, but I think it's really easy when white, middle
and upper class, cisgendered heterosexuals call for inclusivity and finding
common ground with these social regressives. They have no basic rights to fear
losing. The worst they're going to suffer is increased pollution (won't affect
them in their lifetime anyway); but hey, those tax breaks sound nice, right?
I'm not saying their economic concerns are unimportant. But don't ask the
_victims_ having their rights stripped away and peeled back to reach out and
find common ground with the people trying to take them away. We're essentially
being told now, "look, I know the Klan has some bad ideas around African
Americans and gays, but what's really important to them are blue collar jobs.
So can you please stop calling them racists and bridge the divide, LGBTs and
people of color?" \-- and my answer is no, sorry. I can't do that.

~~~
NamTaf
"Basic fairness and equality is much more important to me than my paycheck
size."

That may be because your paycheque affords you a comfortable enough life on
that front that you don't have to stress over it. As you said, it cuts both
ways. Where you worry about the social issues that could rob you of your
marriage, some of the working class worry about the economic issues that
appear to be imminently robbing them of their income that feeds their family.

Yes, the straight white male tends to not care about social issues because he
isn't affected by that inequality. Similarly, the upper-middle class tends not
to care so much about job creation because they're afforded enough education
and job security that they don't have to stress over the prospect of not
having an income.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
Some straight white males seem to care a great deal about these social issues.
That's why they're fighting a culture war over them to distract from their
anti-working class economic policies (I am of course referring to the
Republican party).

Peter Theil gave a speech at the RNC and said "who cares what bathroom people
use" and got cheered.

To this day I have no idea if he, or the people cheering meant: "Silly
Democrats talking about bathrooms when we could be fixing the economy, we
should check peoples birth certificates before they use the bathroom" or
"Silly Republicans talking about bathrooms when we could be fixing the
economy, just let people use whatever they want".

Either works, either side could just decide to go along with the others
decision if the other topics are more important. But they don't, so it's weird
to act like only one side is caring about stupid stuff unless you have strong
ideas about what the 'default' correct answer is and anyone who deviates is
automatically the one who should stop wasting time on it.

------
Tempest1981
Key points (for the TL;DR):

\- The White Working Class (WWC) liked Trump

\- Manly dignity is a big deal for most men. Trump promises to deliver it.

\- Brookings Institution argues that men must resign themselves to working in
“pink collar jobs” — those known by the acronym HEAL, for health, education,
administration and literacy. Not manly

\- WWC women voted for Trump over Clinton by a whopping 28-point margin — 62%
to 34%.

\- WWC men want stable, full-time jobs (not minimum wage) that deliver a solid
middle-class life to the 75% of Americans who don’t have a college degree.
Trump promises that.

\- Obamacare delivered health care to 20 million people. WWC see it as just
another program that taxed the middle class to help the poor

\- Class conflict now closely tracks the urban-rural divide. In the huge red
plains between the thin blue coasts, shockingly high numbers of working-class
men are unemployed or on disability, fueling opioid use

\- Free-trade deals bring net positive GDP gains, but overlook the blue-collar
workers who lost work as jobs left for Mexico or Vietnam

\- Massive funding is needed for community college programs linked with local
businesses to train workers for well-paying new economy jobs. Clinton
mentioned this but didn't stress it

\- Don't write off WWC anger as nothing more than racism. It's more class
cluelessness

\- If we don’t take steps to bridge the class culture gap, when Trump proves
unable to bring steel back to Youngstown, Ohio, the consequences could turn
dangerous.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
Exit polls suggest that those worried about economic topics voted Clinton.
Those that worried about immigration and terrorism voted Trump.

It doesn't seem to be talked about much, but something that stuck out for me
in the election coverage was that Islam was the connecting thread eg Clinton
got donations from Saudi Arabia which is suspect because they are Islamic,
Clinton wants to support Syrian refugees which is bad because they're Islamic,
Clinton has an aide called Huma Abedin which is bad because Islam and so on.

Lots of people say Obama got elected so America can't be racist, but even then
the big slur thrown at him was that he was a secret Muslim, working in concert
with ISIS to undermine the USA.

I wouldn't rule out this as a decisive factor. Clinton (and Bernie for that
matter) wouldn't stoop to the levels required to benefit from this xenophobia.
Trump lied about banning Muslims completely (which presumably even he knows
would be ridiculous and unworkable).

~~~
bjourne
> Exit polls suggest that those worried about economic topics voted Clinton.
> Those that worried about immigration and terrorism voted Trump.

A lot of people worried about immigration are so because of the "they take our
jobs" angle. So it goes hand in hand.

~~~
mancerayder
Yes, absolutely. I think as well that the immigration debate has more than one
angle, which have (in my opinion) these most vocal arguments:

a) Immigrants are bad people and they cause crime and change our culture. Bad
bleeding-heart liberal ideas that I disagree with are bringing in people with
different norms who don't care about my culture or country. Those people
should just go back to where they came from, I don't like 'em one bit.

b) Immigration should be re-evaluated, after all, shouldn't America be helping
our own? Also, a lot of these people are working under the table, and when
they go the hospital it's my taxes that pay for it. I can't help but think
those liberal elites are screwing over the little guy. They are so out of
touch. For example, look at how Obama wants to bring in even more. And those
free trade agreements smell mighty corrupt to me - just look at those jobs we
sent to Mexico.

The Democrats focused on 'debating' or "combating" A. B would've been the
right thing to address, to respond to, with an actionable platform. I feel a
parallel is happening in Europe today, a similar disconnect.

------
Animats
"If we don’t take steps to bridge the class culture gap, when Trump proves
unable to bring steel back to Youngstown, Ohio, the consequences could turn
dangerous."

Steel isn't coming back to Youngstown because the steel industry moved South
to break the unions. The industry built new plants, and automated. US steel
production is about where it was in the 1980s. But it's gone from downtown
Pittsburgh, Chicago, Cleveland, Youngstown, and Bethlehem. (Still at Gary,
though.) [1] The growth has been south of the Mason-Dixon line. Arkansas,
Alabama, Tennessee, North and South Carolina now have big steel plants. Wages
are much lower than in the union days. Plants employ far fewer people. There's
much more steel recycling, too; most US steel plants run on scrap now, not
iron ore. About 40% of steel is recycled.

US steel imports are about 30% of US internal sales, and mostly from Canada,
Brazil, and South Korea. China isn't even in the top five. Trade restrictions
are holding China down there. The US exports steel, but less than it imports.
Stronger import restrictions would either hurt Canada or be ineffective.

Appliances, though... The US could have an effective push to make more
appliances of all types in the US. Some US appliance makers that used to
outsource have already moved production back to the US. But anybody who builds
a new appliance plant is going to make it very automated. Only old plants are
labor-intensive.

[1]
[https://www.steel.org/~/media/Files/AISI/Public%20Policy/Mem...](https://www.steel.org/~/media/Files/AISI/Public%20Policy/Member%20Map/NorthAmerica-
Map2013/SteelPlant_NorthAmerica_AISI_version_June252013.pdf)

------
misterbowfinger
> If You Want to Connect with White Working-Class Voters, Place Economics at
> the Center

She means _jobs_ for the white working-class, not _economics_. Every economist
values free-trade. Consumers will get higher quality products at lower prices
if we pass more free-trade deals.

Sure, we can create price floors and impose high tariffs on imported goods to
increase jobs for the white working-class. We'll just have to raise taxes for
the people who actually earn their jobs. This is a ludicrous argument. We
would _never_ say something similar to create jobs for under-represented
minorities.

We need alternatives to Silicon Valley in the rural areas of Wisconsin,
Michigan, Ohio, and Florida. Stanford graduates have to think about moving to
Iowa. If we can create great companies elsewhere, the white working-class
would start to see different opportunities. Once their financial situation
isn't at risk, they'll start to engage in politics in a more meaningful way -
in a way where we'll actually talk about who is fit to be President and not
the person who's just saying all the right buzzwords.

~~~
hilop
Not every economist ignores the inequality costs if labor being forced to race
to the bottom

~~~
damptowel
Not to mention second order effects undercutting first order ones.

------
lambdasquirrel
Oh please. As someone who grew up poor, whose parents had to climb up and deal
with racism. I'm just going to spit on this when they say, this isn't about
racism.

Look, everyone else had to work differently, and accept things like education,
creativity and sensitivity as values. Why does the WWC think it's entitled to
keep on going as they are? You like directness? Well I'm just going to say it
for what it is.

~~~
dikdik
"and accept things like education"

um, what? Boomers pummeled education into their children as an essential part
of success. Now they get to witness their children with a lower standard of
living despite "investing" many more years and dollars than they had to.

If I had kids, I would be feeling pretty ashamed if they were being setup to
have a crappier existence and shittier jobs that "require" a greater
investment in education.

------
x86_64Ubuntu
I find it curious that people talk about the "economic uncertainty" as a
center piece, but somehow "Blue collar resentment" doesn't seem to manifest
itself in the same way with non-whites. As if to say that non-whites are doing
better.

~~~
evgen
This article has all of the hallmarks of something cranked out as fast as
possible to ride the WTF wave, with little to show and mostly a collection of
anecdote and refs to the work of others. As you note, non-whites are invisible
(apparently they are not "working class") as well as women and really anyone
who is not white male with resentment issues.

~~~
ChemicalWarfare
I don't agree with everything in the article but it's angle is obviously
trying to figure out the reason for Trump's popularity with "white non-college
educated males".

~~~
evgen
I don't think anyone, anywhere at all questioned his appeal to "white
resentment" for the past year. It has been a given. As for why he has this
appeal, it is not much different than prior Republican appeal for this same
demographic; Republican policies are manifestly bad for this group and yet
they have continued to vote in a counter-productive manner since the 80s.
There is nothing new to figure out here and this paper presents rehashed
arguments cloaked in personal anecdote plumped up with vague references to
other people's work and then presents the whole thing as though the author was
making some sort of profound discovery.

~~~
ChemicalWarfare
I was specifically replying to your "non-whites are invisible" remark. Just
because this article clearly concentrates on the white non-college educated
demographic that doesn't make non-whites "invisible".

------
knz
There are some interesting points being made in the article but some of it is
crap.

> Hillary Clinton, by contrast, epitomizes the dorky arrogance and smugness of
> the professional elite. The dorkiness: the pantsuits. The arrogance: the
> email server. The smugness: the basket of deplorables. Worse, her mere
> presence rubs it in that even women from her class can treat working-class
> men with disrespect. Look at how she condescends to Trump as unfit to hold
> the office of the presidency and dismisses his supporters as racist, sexist,
> homophobic, or xenophobic.

Isn't this just the same attitude applied towards Clinton/liberals? Wearing
carhartts could be dorky, Trump not releasing his tax returns could be
arrogant, listen to conservative media for a while and you'll hear similar
insults about the intelligence and sexism of liberals.

> Trump’s blunt talk taps into another blue-collar value: straight talk.
> “Directness is a working-class norm,”...Of course Trump appeals. Clinton’s
> clunky admission that she talks one way in public and another in private?
> Further proof she’s a two-faced phony.

Straight talk? Or blatant lies that anyone with critical thinking can see
through - Trump has already walked back from of some of his proposals. Trump
is also an absolute master of doublespeak and using it to say outrageous
things - "Those second amendment folks could do something about it" etc.
Plenty of business people are also very direct. Aren't people from places like
Chicago and New York even known for being direct/blunt?

> At a deeper level, both parties need an economic program that can deliver
> middle-class jobs. Republicans have one: Unleash American business.
> Democrats? They remain obsessed with cultural issues. I fully understand why
> transgender bathrooms are important, but I also understand why progressives’
> obsession with prioritizing cultural issues infuriates many Americans whose
> chief concerns are economic.

How the hell is healthcare not one of the unnecessary burdens we place on
businesses in America? Why does a small business need to worry about providing
health insurance to their employees? I work for a medium size company and we
have a whole department of people managing health insurance, HSA's, VEBA's,
and various health related tax deferment programs. Does any other OECD country
have that additional burden?

------
dave_abq
This is Brilliant. The Clintons did a good job in the mid 90s bridging this
gap, but when you are in the middle you get shot at from both sides. The
recent progressive coalition tended to not recognize a middle.

------
chillingeffect
Article focuses way too much on gender, not enough on economics. Smug style in
American Liberalism is way more comprehensive:

[http://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11451378/smug-american-
liberali...](http://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11451378/smug-american-liberalism)

~~~
ZeroGravitas
I'm only half way through this article but it strikes me as kinda ... wait for
it ... smug, no?

------
damptowel
So the issue is outdated ethics that no longer apply to the real world? And
the solution is to ignore the ethics and somehow fix things? Seems like
traditionalism self destructing.

------
RCortex
Completely ignoring the democratic party's platform as usual. It's starting to
look like this "right-wing base" is obsessed with identity, and it's
preventing them from actually understanding the other people who want to help
them. The rest of us just want everyone to get along and be happy.

This article makes it sound like working or middle class people are dumb as
shit. My neighbors aren't dumb. They didn't vote though.

~~~
mattthebaker
Hmm, yeah. I'm struggling to understand the difference between the WWC and the
poor outside of identity. Is it ideological in the sense that the WWC are
people who want to work but can't find work, and they perceive the poor as
people unwilling or unable to work.

------
kpennell
This article gave me (Bay Area dude) some great perspective on what motivated
people to vote Trump.

------
douche
This is the best explanation of the psyche of the white working class I have
seen on here yet. Every point in here rings true to me, thinking about the way
I grew up and the people I knew, and still know back home in a dying blue-
collar resource-extraction and manufacturing economy.

> Understand That Working Class Means Middle Class, Not Poor

> Understand Working-Class Resentment of the Poor

> Understand How Class Divisions Have Translated into Geography

> If You Want to Connect with White Working-Class Voters, Place Economics at
> the Center

> Avoid the Temptation to Write Off Blue-Collar Resentment as Racism

And then this is the real kicker, to me:

> One little-known element of that gap is that the white working class (WWC)
> resents professionals but admires the rich. Class migrants (white-collar
> professionals born to blue-collar families) report that “professional people
> were generally suspect” and that managers are college kids “who don’t know
> shit about how to do anything but are full of ideas about how I have to do
> my job,”

~~~
schoen
The article didn't explicitly say so, but this is counterposed by urban
liberals who commonly admire professionals (thinking that they possess
valuable expertise that should be respected) and are suspicious of the rich
(thinking that they likely became rich by exploiting people, by doing
something unethical or illegal, or through cronyism).

It's not exactly the same cultural contrast, but I remembered this thing that
David D. Friedman wrote back in 1995:

[http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/My_Posts/My_View_o...](http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/My_Posts/My_View_of_Oughts.html)

> I have been arguing politics for a long time. In arguing with people on the
> left, I find it is very hard to come to an agreement on the assumed facts
> surrounding the situations we are judging. My imaginary capitalist has
> capital because he worked hard clearing part of the boundless forest while
> his employee to be was being lazy and living on what he could gather—so it
> is entirely just that the capitalist gets part of the output of his land and
> his employee's labor. But the leftist doesn't like that hypothetical. His
> imaginary capitalist inherited his capital from a father who stole it. I
> don't like that hypothetical. I conclude that our moral intuitions are
> similar enough so that the same assumed facts push both of us in the same
> direction—and since we want to go in opposite directions we want [to] assume
> different facts.

