Thomas Edsall, who writes for the New York Times, has been talking for some time now about how the voting bases of the Democratic and Republican parties have flipped--the Republicans now claiming the "working man" and the Democrats now claiming the professionals, the upper middle class, the educated who used to be called the "country club Republicans," rich enough to own big houses, expensive cars, send their kids to private schools, but not necessarily in the upper 1%.
His most recent article noted a study by the Brookings Institution about the counties won by HRC vs those won by Trump and it was "found" that the counties which voted, often overwhelmingly for HRC were the "high productivity" counties where 64% of the country's GDP and economic activity occurs, while the counties carried by Trump accounted for only 36% of the nations "productivity" and economic activity.
So basically, what Brookings was saying is what most of us Democrats have said privately: it was the losers, the rural rubes, the ignorant and idle, the work a day resentful under toads who voted Trump in. These Trump voters are marginalized and not as important to the vitality and vigor of our economy or our national life. And here you have a Brookings study to verify this belief, to validate it for us.
But, as is so often the case, it's the letters (or in 21st century lingo, the "comments" section) which provokes the most thought. Consider this response:
What he is doing is to question the underlying assumptions of the Brookings scholars--I had accepted the definition of "high productivity" counties because I wanted to believe that counties like Montgomery County, Maryland, Westchester County New York, or some of the high tech counties in California are where the energetic, educated, innovative drivers of our economy and our nation's well being live. And those superior people are who ought to be selecting our political leadership.
But as Jonathan from NYC points out, the work many of these folks do may actually be "worthless" to the nation, valuable only to the private bank accounts of those doing this work. We are, in some cases at least, counting GDP (gross domestic product) merely as dollars rather than actually examining the value of what is produced. Would anyone actually miss the output of a McKenzie consultant, or a medical researcher whose work has thus far not affected health or even expanded knowledge? Filing a report in 20 white binders may make the author richer, but would anyone but him actually be affected by that? This is an important, maybe even a profound question. I certainly see people working in my own organization daily who, if they simply disappeared tomorrow would hardly be missed, and yet they generate GDP and spend money to help the economy. If you gave them a salary but did not require them to show up for work, their worth to the economy would be unchanged.
There is much about our economy which is dysfunctional. This includes the corruption of the idea of "qualification." We all love the idea of a meritocracy because it arose in opposition to people given jobs because of accidents of birth, but qualifications and merit have been so corrupted the idea of merit has been fatally wounded. Electricians or veterinary assistants who have to solve polynomial equations and pass irrelevant and meaningless math tests to be licensed. Doctors who face "board exams" which do not insure or improve quality of medical care but simply support the industry of examinations which support CEO's making millions.
One might see Trump's election as a revolt against the idea of "qualified." He was "disqualified" from the Presidency according to many pundits. He didn't have HRC's qualifications. Well, the voters had other ideas about what constitutes a qualification. In your eye, they said. We've had it with your idea of merit, qualifications and deserving.
While there is much to decry in the ascendancy of the underclass, I hope at least, this election might help clear away some rotten timbers in the walls of the frigate of establishment hierarchies.
 |
| Edsall |
His most recent article noted a study by the Brookings Institution about the counties won by HRC vs those won by Trump and it was "found" that the counties which voted, often overwhelmingly for HRC were the "high productivity" counties where 64% of the country's GDP and economic activity occurs, while the counties carried by Trump accounted for only 36% of the nations "productivity" and economic activity.
So basically, what Brookings was saying is what most of us Democrats have said privately: it was the losers, the rural rubes, the ignorant and idle, the work a day resentful under toads who voted Trump in. These Trump voters are marginalized and not as important to the vitality and vigor of our economy or our national life. And here you have a Brookings study to verify this belief, to validate it for us.
But, as is so often the case, it's the letters (or in 21st century lingo, the "comments" section) which provokes the most thought. Consider this response:
Jonathan
is a trusted commenter NYC 1 day ago
Part of the problem is that the higher incomes and salaries are to some extent artificial. Affluent professionals have used their political power to create monopolies that channel the money to themselves. Doctors, lawyers, and bureaucrats collect salaries that are much higher than the salaries of those people out in the hinterlands who produce necessary goods like food, lumber, steel, and fuel. So when we say these people in these counties produce lots of GDP, we are counting many things that most people consider worthless as highly valuable. If I do a Sarbanes-Oxley analysis of the general ledger system, and file it in 20 white binders that no one reads, the $200,000 I am paid to produce this these valuable goods counts just as much as the $200,00 worth of wheat a farmer grows in his fields in North Dakota. is this right?
I would also like to address the supposed 'skill downsizing'. If you read books like Academically Adrift, you will discover that many 'college graduates' know little or nothing. A study by the Department of Education found that about 4% of recent 'college graduates' were functionally illiterate, and another 20% read at the fifth-grade level. For them, serving coffee to customers IS the right job.
What he is doing is to question the underlying assumptions of the Brookings scholars--I had accepted the definition of "high productivity" counties because I wanted to believe that counties like Montgomery County, Maryland, Westchester County New York, or some of the high tech counties in California are where the energetic, educated, innovative drivers of our economy and our nation's well being live. And those superior people are who ought to be selecting our political leadership.
But as Jonathan from NYC points out, the work many of these folks do may actually be "worthless" to the nation, valuable only to the private bank accounts of those doing this work. We are, in some cases at least, counting GDP (gross domestic product) merely as dollars rather than actually examining the value of what is produced. Would anyone actually miss the output of a McKenzie consultant, or a medical researcher whose work has thus far not affected health or even expanded knowledge? Filing a report in 20 white binders may make the author richer, but would anyone but him actually be affected by that? This is an important, maybe even a profound question. I certainly see people working in my own organization daily who, if they simply disappeared tomorrow would hardly be missed, and yet they generate GDP and spend money to help the economy. If you gave them a salary but did not require them to show up for work, their worth to the economy would be unchanged.
There is much about our economy which is dysfunctional. This includes the corruption of the idea of "qualification." We all love the idea of a meritocracy because it arose in opposition to people given jobs because of accidents of birth, but qualifications and merit have been so corrupted the idea of merit has been fatally wounded. Electricians or veterinary assistants who have to solve polynomial equations and pass irrelevant and meaningless math tests to be licensed. Doctors who face "board exams" which do not insure or improve quality of medical care but simply support the industry of examinations which support CEO's making millions.
 |
| Raging against the machine |
One might see Trump's election as a revolt against the idea of "qualified." He was "disqualified" from the Presidency according to many pundits. He didn't have HRC's qualifications. Well, the voters had other ideas about what constitutes a qualification. In your eye, they said. We've had it with your idea of merit, qualifications and deserving.
 |
| Under valued contributors to the GDP |
While there is much to decry in the ascendancy of the underclass, I hope at least, this election might help clear away some rotten timbers in the walls of the frigate of establishment hierarchies.
