> generally slanted more on those who don't understand how many more better opportunities they might have it than others
People mostly only see what they have now compared to what others have in their social sphere, as it translates to social ranking. When people talk about "better opportunities" it lacks understanding of just what the social sphere encompass.
For example, there was a study in wage differences done in Goteborg (Sweden) which found that in the age group below 25, women generally earned more than men for the same job and education. Between 25-35 there was no wage differences, and above 35 wages slowly started to favor men with the higher differences when people reach over 50. If we then count the number of years people stay in the work force we can easily see that 35+ is significant larger than 25 and under, but is it fair (and empathic) to call it an privilege for young men that old men at 50+ earn so much more money than women over 50?
The Democratic Party and the left movement in general could start to switch rhetoric towards individual needs and disadvantages rather than generalizations of groups. It would still be the same politics but it would include everyone who at some point in life, location, (or any other qualification) becomes disadvantaged compares to others in their social sphere. Young white men without work is their voter group if they just stopped generalizing them into the privileged rather than the disadvantaged.
People mostly only see what they have now compared to what others have in their social sphere, as it translates to social ranking. When people talk about "better opportunities" it lacks understanding of just what the social sphere encompass.
For example, there was a study in wage differences done in Goteborg (Sweden) which found that in the age group below 25, women generally earned more than men for the same job and education. Between 25-35 there was no wage differences, and above 35 wages slowly started to favor men with the higher differences when people reach over 50. If we then count the number of years people stay in the work force we can easily see that 35+ is significant larger than 25 and under, but is it fair (and empathic) to call it an privilege for young men that old men at 50+ earn so much more money than women over 50?
The Democratic Party and the left movement in general could start to switch rhetoric towards individual needs and disadvantages rather than generalizations of groups. It would still be the same politics but it would include everyone who at some point in life, location, (or any other qualification) becomes disadvantaged compares to others in their social sphere. Young white men without work is their voter group if they just stopped generalizing them into the privileged rather than the disadvantaged.