 |
 |
I thought this piece by Binyamin Applebaum was pretty interesting: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/09/magazine/why-are-politicians-so-obsessed-with-manufacturing.html There are about 65,000 steel workers in the U.S. In the cotton supply chain, there are certainly no more than 200,000 people either directly or indirectly involved. But there are over 800,000 home health aides. Yet when we talk about the "working class" it tends to be about steelworkers and so on. I think it's hard to do meaningful work toward democracy in the workplace if we're talking about workplaces that don't really exist rather than the ones that do. Cheers, Reed On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 09:38:15AM -0500, Akira Drake Rodriguez wrote: > Hi all, > > > I would like to note that this idea of being out of touch with the working class lacks nuance and is short-sighted - Clinton edged Trump when looking at voters with income under 49k, and Trump edged out Clinton for voters making 50-99k. I feel that many still use working class as shorthand for “underemployed white male in the US Rust belt” but that is largely not true. This article shows the voting breakdown by race, age, gender, and income - which although is based on exit poll data, is still useful. > > https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/10/there-probably-is-no-new-donald-trump-voting-coalition/ > > > I don’t disagree that we (academics) could do more to stay in touch with the “traditional” working class, but maybe expand that to include the contemporary working class as well. > > Akira > > > > > Akira Drake Rodriguez > Postdoctoral Fellow for Academic Diversity > University of Pennsylvania, School of Design > Office: Duhring Wing, 407 > Phone: 215.746.3383 > Web: http://akirarodriguez.com > > > > > > > On Nov 11, 2016, at 9:26 AM, Hillary Shaw <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > > "the problem is: that we have lost contact with the traditional working class, but instead of engaging with them as if we have forgotten how and also where (!) to do this, we prefer to discuss among ourselves on seminars, conferences and mailing-lists what it means to be left or what it ought to mean"...absolutely agree. The problem is a mssive shift in wealth to the top 0.1% - now the 'traditional working class', in all their large numbers, are discontented and blame it on Globalisation - they percieve Globn, with all its attributes, to be the source of this inequity, the reason why their children can't afford houses, or even to rent decent accommodation, and much else, the reason their wages seem to be stagnant, and logically are votong for what they see as anti-Globalisation, i.e., unfortunaetly, Nationalist, candidates. > > > > Maybe we need a National Maximum Wage, to be set at whatever is 100x the National Minimum Wage - M W in the Uk is about £8 an hour, £16,000 pa, so any income above £1,600,000 pa to be taxed at 99.9%. Of course all countires together would have to agree to do this (oironically, a sort of globalisation of fiscal policy), .....or else we risk ever dodgier election results across the developed world. > > > > Dr Hillary J. Shaw > > Director and Senior Research Consultant > > Shaw Food Solutions > > Newport > > Shropshire > > TF10 8QE > > www.fooddeserts.org > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Vincent Möller <[log in to unmask]> > > To: CRIT-GEOG-FORUM <[log in to unmask]> > > Sent: Fri, Nov 11, 2016 11:09 am > > Subject: Re: Evil and the US > > > > Dear all, > > we all agree that after Brexit it has been the next huge shock for all of us to see Trump win these elections. Again the unthinkable has happened and we are seriously asking ourselves (some sooner, some later), how and why did this happen? However, what I find also shocking is, how quickly this here became first a discussion on who can say what in which form on a critical mailing-list, and then turning to the larger question or reflection on what it means to be left/ critical. Whereas I can understand that these questions are also important I personally feel that these self-centred discussions are a) to a growing extend typical for the left and therefore b) rather part of the problem than part of a solution. > > It's like we know what the problem is: that we have lost contact with the traditional working class, but instead of engaging with them as if we have forgotten how and also where (!) to do this, we prefer to discuss among ourselves on seminars, conferences and mailing-lists what it means to be left or what it ought to mean. So whereas I totally agree with Raktim what the problem is, I don't see much that gives me reasons to be optimistic. > > Best regards from Mumbai, Vincent >