« Crying Wolf | Main | Happy Veterans Day! »
Working Class: Too Fat and Happy
Taking a look at Ruy Teixeira's latest public opinion watch you see the interesting combination that the Democrats are doing better among low-income people (households with less than $30,000 in annual income, and, according to Philip Klinker, this stays true even if you expand the income threshold up to $50,000) but worse among what Teixeira calls the "white working class," meaning white people without college degrees. All this suggests that observation that the white working class just isn't poor enough for the Democrats' good. Another, more sensibly, way of putting the observation would be to note that the "working class" thus defined doesn't necessarily have the characteristic of "poorness" (or whatever, better to use a real word) that the term brings to mind. There certainly are a lot of jobs in the skilled trades -- plumbers and so forth -- that don't require college degrees and are, in fact, more remunerative than many "information worker"-type jobs such as political journalist/blogger.
UPDATE: Yes, yes, the implicit math underlying this analysis is naive and quite possibly wrong. The lack of good multivariate analysis of the exit polls is problematic. What, for example, is the impact of the "youthfullness" variable when you control for the fact that the under-30 population is substantially less white than the over-30 population?
November 10, 2004 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345160fd69e200d83421bcb253ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Working Class: Too Fat and Happy:
» cross tabulate that! from coffee grounds
this kind of post is beginning to make me frustrated. Not for the poster's lack of effort, but from the limitations of two-way cross tabulations. Everyone is analysing tabulations of voting intention by one other variable, leading to such apparent... [Read More]
Tracked on Nov 10, 2004 6:19:45 PM
» Working class from Oxymoron
There is certainly truth in the conclusion that the working class -- not so much perceived in Marxian terms -- is [Read More]
Tracked on Nov 11, 2004 4:40:13 AM
» Working Class Blues from Res Ipsa
Like everyone else, Matthew Yglesias is slicing and dicing the numbers and does an interesting discussin on how white "working class" voters appeared to abandon the Democratic party at higher rates then other groups. I think where Yglesias' analysis falls [Read More]
Tracked on Nov 11, 2004 10:50:39 AM
» Gift Basket
from Tom Jamme's Blog
Sweet Blessings, a new Christian-based online shop featuring cookie bouquets, candy bouquets and gift baskets, opens with a campaign to donate a portion of all profits to Habitat For Humanity. The devastation of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, while not a... [Read More]
Tracked on Oct 7, 2005 2:16:03 PM
Comments
I find the most recent slicing-and-dicing of the electorate to be somewhat mysterious. On the one hand, Kerry won 57% of the vote for people earning 30K or less, Bush won 57% of the vote for people earning 50K or more, and they split the 30K-50K range. On the other hand, Bush won the non-college-educated set, they split the college-only set and the high school dropouts, and Kerry won the people with advanced degrees. So somehow Kerry's voters are more educated but have lower incomes, which seems contradictory. The only way I can square this circle is to note that some people have low income solely because they are young (college students for example), while other people have low income for more fundamental reasons. If I attribute Kerry's strong performance amongst the lowest income brackets to actually being strong performance amongst young people, then I think it all fits together. Maybe.
Posted by: PT | Nov 10, 2004 6:08:36 PM
Dear Democrats....
Posted by: tex | Nov 10, 2004 6:20:37 PM
I wonder if evolutionary instincts render fat people unable to think of themselves as poor.
Posted by: handel | Nov 10, 2004 6:27:05 PM
Cheer up, you just had a big break, that bodes well for the Democratic party in 2006: Bush has just fired up his illegal alien amnesty drive again, something that tends to utterly infuriate his base.
You suppose there could be some kind of "piss off the people who voted for you once you're elected" gene running through the Bush family?
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | Nov 10, 2004 6:50:00 PM
So somehow Kerry's voters are more educated but have lower incomes, which seems contradictory.
Not at all, because they are mostly* separate groups that each form one part of the whole.
Kerry, in other words, undoubtedly pulled more votes from people of less means (the bulk of whom are not highly educated), and such folks accounted for (apparently) a decent portion of his overall vote, thus bringing down the overall average income of the "typical" Kerry voter.
On the other hand, Kerry did well among people with graduate degrees, better than Bush. The two groups, again, form part of one whole (the total Kerry vote).
I see nothing contradictory about winning the votes of the highly educated, and also winning the votes of the poor (the latter phenomenon apparently lowers the average income of the "typical" Kerry voter).
If I'm missing something obvious, please blast away.
*One is aware, of course, that there is such a thing as an underpaid, highly educated person (for instance the iconic NYC cab driver with a PhD in sociology; though I think that was a passing phenomenon, and probably one that was exagerrated even back when it was valid). It's just that most highly eduated persons are not poor.
Posted by: P.B. Almeida | Nov 10, 2004 6:54:40 PM
Cheer up, you just had a big break, that bodes well for the Democratic party in 2006: Bush has just fired up his illegal alien amnesty drive again, something that tends to utterly infuriate his base.
Brett: I'm wondering about this myself. I strongly suspect Bush and Rove, very mindful of wanting to get something they can use to build bridges to the inreasingly in-play Latino vote, are hoping very much to get a guest worker plan passed.
But by pitching it now as an idea that would apply to people currently here illegally, it will make it look like a big concession to the base when they "back down" and accept a guest worker plan that one can apply to participate in only when one is outside the US (so you couldn't apply if you've already illegally entered the US, and so it wouldn't constitute an "amnesty" program).
If you want a slice of cake, you'd better ask for the whole cake upfront. Rove surely understands this basic political strategy.
I dunno, maybe I'm giving them too much credit.
Posted by: P.B. Almeida | Nov 10, 2004 7:05:53 PM
"Bush has just fired up his illegal alien amnesty drive again"...
Well, somebody has to toil in the fields of the lord.
Please pass the strawberries.
Posted by: Blue Iris | Nov 10, 2004 7:13:53 PM
Didn't Bill Gates drop out of college to go into business? So, wouldn't he be "white working class" by this definition?
Maybe, just maybe, a definition of "working class" that actually doesn't include multibillionaire hypercapitalists would be more reasonable?
Posted by: cmdicely | Nov 10, 2004 7:21:56 PM
But, P.B., why would he have to play games like that? It's HIS party that controls Congress, after all. And Republicans aren't particularly opposed to a guest worker program, if it does indeed have the kind of conditions you describe.
Just tie it to finally securing the southern border, and they'd JUMP at it, as a matter of fact.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | Nov 10, 2004 7:30:24 PM
And Republicans aren't particularly opposed to a guest worker program, if it does indeed have the kind of conditions you describe.
Brett: You're kidding, right?
Sure, many Republicans in Congress might be open to such a program, as well as many Democrats, but, my observation (and I spend a certain amount of time hanging with my fellow righties) is that the very concept of immigration itself is deeply mistrusted by many on the Right, never mind the term "guest worker program".
I'm talking primarily about the base, not the elites, and I'm referring most especially to people in states bordering Mexico. In fact, I'm fairly certain one could uncover a lot of antipathy toward immigation across the political spectrum if one were to ask the appropriate questions in polls. I seriously doubt very many Americans support the very excellent idea of a guest worker program (maybe I'm too pessimistic, but, I don't think so).
And anyway, it remains to be seen how much the Republicans actually control Congress (they have majorities, but that's not the same thing), and it's furthermore a possibility that Congressional Republicans will jealously guard their prerogatives, notwithstanding the White House's desire to pass its agenda.
Cannily preparing in advance for possible necessary compromises does not, in my book, constitute "playing games".
Posted by: P.B. Almeida | Nov 10, 2004 8:15:14 PM
This is the most incohehent, nonsensenical paragraph I've read in a long time. It shoud be entered in a contest for liberal babble. I've read it over a dozen times and still can't figure out what you are trying to say. WHAT'S YOUR POINT? There isn't one.
First paragraph is reasonable.
But then we have this: "All this suggests that the white working class just isn't poor enough for the Democrats' good".
Are you admitting that for Dems to win, they need more poor people? That would explain many of their goals. Do low income people who are voting for Dems know about this? It might change their mind.
Then we have: "Another, more sensibly, way of putting the observation would be to note that the "working class" thus defined doesn't necessarily have the characteristic of "poorness" (or whatever, better to use a real word) that the term brings to mind."
Aside from the "observation" that you are trying way to hard to sound intellectually superior and overly educated, what you really mean to is, "They don't realize they are poor."
See how I can say the same thing you did in just 6 words, without having to resort to misusing a word (sensibly,),and thus didn't need the intellectually sounding "thus", and didn't have to make up new words (poorness).
Please, go on believing you have intelluctual superiority over us Bush voters. Good luck. See you in the mid-terms 2006.
Posted by: tillUrDizzy | Nov 10, 2004 8:37:09 PM
I thought the most interesting stats were that Kerry got most of the people with no high school and with post graduate degrees.
In other words, the real smart people and the real dumb people vote Kerry. Either you're so dumb that you need social services to get by so vote for the nanny state party, and if you are overeducated you pick Kerry because you know that caring for the poor is the best long term strategy for society.
Posted by: epistemology | Nov 10, 2004 8:38:18 PM
tillURdizzy:
The best educated did well for Kerry. People with post graduate education. The smartest people went for Kerry. Why?
Posted by: epistemology | Nov 10, 2004 8:44:36 PM
Do you have any evidence that people who get post-graduate degrees tend to be smarter than people with only undergrad degrees? Personal experience (which, of course, isn't worth a whole lot) would suggest that most people go for post-graduate degrees because they want to postpone entering the workforce. I doubt they are substantially smarter than other college graduates, and even if they are I suspect the avoiding-the-free-market effect is more powerful. People who don't want to work for a living tend to vote for Democrats.
Do you know if that refers specifically to PhD or does it include JD, MBA, and MD?
Posted by: Xavier | Nov 10, 2004 8:58:02 PM
Epistomology:
Your question requires a thoughtful answer, and I don't feel like it tonight. Will get back tomorrow.
Posted by: tillUrDizzy | Nov 10, 2004 9:33:32 PM
... my observation (and I spend a certain amount of time hanging with my fellow righties) is that the very concept of immigration itself is deeply mistrusted by many on the Right, never mind the term "guest worker program".
I'm talking primarily about the base, not the elites, and I'm referring most especially to people in states bordering Mexico.
Still feeling a bit defensive about that land grab after the Mexican-American War, are we?
Posted by: S. Anderson | Nov 10, 2004 10:29:57 PM
Not that I think anybody reads these comments for content, but what the hell.
From 2000 census data:
20-24 18,964,001 (total)
2,628,752 13.9% (black)
3,409,427 18.0% (hispanic)
11,594,742 61.1% (white non-hispanic)
25-29 19,381,336 (total)
2,548,968 13.2% (black)
3,385,334 17.5% (hispanic)
11,990,863 61.9% (white non-hispanic)
30+ 159,944,953 (total)
17,419,089 10.9% (black)
18,219,679 11.4% (hispanic)
121,826,446 76.2% (white non-hispanic)
From a CNN exit poll, Bush got 11% of the black vote, 44% of hispanic, and 58% of white.
Running those percentages through the census filter, we would expect that Bush would get (I've averaged the 20-24 and 25-29 numbers for simplicity):
20-29:
13.6% * 11% (black) +
17.8% * 44% (hispanic) +
61.1% * 58% (white) =
expected Bush vote of 44.8%.
30+ :
10.9% * 11% (black) +
11.4% * 44% (hispanic) +
76.2% * 58% (white) =
expected Bush vote of 61.2%.
Same CNN Poll:
Actual Bush vote (18-29): 45%
Actual Bush vote (30+) : ~52%
Something more is going on in the 30+ side, but the 18-29 Democratic skew appears to be completely explainable by demographic differences.
Posted by: Richard Campbell | Nov 10, 2004 11:19:47 PM
Richard: this is a reasonable starting point, but I think young black voters, particularly young black men, have terrible turnout characteristics, P. Diddy or no P. Diddy.
Posted by: niq | Nov 10, 2004 11:50:52 PM
NEWSFLASH!!!!!Democrats do badly with white males!!!!!!!
Posted by: Rob | Nov 11, 2004 12:04:48 AM
The trackback is right. People seem to just keep announcing the same raw data that's been available since election day as though it were analysis. What's up with that?
TillUR-
I don't think that comment is supposed to suggest that "they don't realize they are poor," but rather that 50k is a handsome sum, well removed from dire straits. The real joke/non-sequitur here, though, is the comparison with professional bloggers. Anyway, taking the post's perspective, I do think that "the white working class just isn't poor enough for the Democrats' good" would've been a great way to, like, counteract Bush's overtures to small businessmen this time. Perhaps it could be the campaign slogan in the "Hillary for potentate in '08" campaign.
Posted by: spacetoast | Nov 11, 2004 1:22:21 AM
Correcting for math error, the 30+ would have an expected Bush score of 50.4%, much closer than the screwed up 61.2% (not sure where that mistake came from).
I concede turnout differentials could be factored into the numbers, but I'd have to find them somewhere first.
Posted by: Richard Campbell | Nov 11, 2004 8:09:07 AM
So we can conclude that Democrats are roughly of two demographic groups:
The extremely poor, and
The extremely well educated.
Psychologically, they are of two demographics as well:
The materially and psychologically dependent, and
The insulated and smug.
This is exactly why I could never be a Democrat-they're all the unhealthy people!
Steve
Posted by: Steve | Nov 11, 2004 8:13:01 AM
I think this is all pretty easily explainable in that - extremely broadly speaking, but with amounts of people this great the broad stuff matters - economic conservatism grows with income and social liberalism (secularlism) grows with education. I think we'd all agree that the upper class trend more libertarian and the poor more populist. So if you're more educated than rich, you probably vote D, if more rich than educated, probably R.
Posted by: theogon | Nov 11, 2004 8:24:05 AM
Steve-
If I'm a 26 yo dissertator in a social science can I be materially and psychologically dependent, insulated, and smug all at once?
But of course, I'm not a Democrat.
Posted by: MCMC | Nov 11, 2004 8:52:20 AM
Bread and circuses... .
Posted by: moonbiter | Nov 11, 2004 9:07:27 AM
