Been working late on a massive post that I think will probably have to get split into two or three parts when all is said and done. In the meantime, I'm digging Incubus tonight...
Sunday, November 20, 2016
Late Night Track -- Megalomaniac
Been working late on a massive post that I think will probably have to get split into two or three parts when all is said and done. In the meantime, I'm digging Incubus tonight...
Saturday, November 19, 2016
Is Antitrust the Answer to the Rural Voting Deficit?
Martin Longman has posted more about winning about the rural vote, particularly in Pennsylvania. If his electoral analysis for Pennsylvania holds for the other Rust Belt states (Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Ohio), winning at least a portion of this vote back could be the most important factor in putting the country back in the right direction. Because of extensive redistricting, the Dems are at such a disadvantage in many downticket races that they need to do much better than 51-49 overall to gain control of the Senate, the House, and the state legislatures.
His strategy for doing this is for the Democrats to embrace antitrust practices:
His strategy for doing this is for the Democrats to embrace antitrust practices:
Another is the one I have been focusing on which is using anti-trust law to bring back small business ownership in rural America. This should be coupled with a set of policies aimed at empowering people to learn the skills and get access to the capital to start small businesses. The promise isn’t to bring back the factories but to bring back the Mom and Pop hardware stores and banks and pharmacies. These are businesses that cannot be outsourced and that used to be privately owned instead of franchised.
Perhaps the national Democratic Party will be somewhat divided on these issues, but nothing prevents populist Democrats from running on this set of policies in rural communities all over the country.I'd love it if I saw it working at all; I mean, antitrust was the original main focus of this blog. But it would seem to me that rural areas would be an especially difficult place to push this narrative, even if it would be really good for them. At this point, aren't they all very dependent on Wal-Marts and other big box stores? How do the Dems even try that without being overwhelmed by pro-big box propaganda?
Exploring the minimum wage
With the basic economic theory of supply and demand, anyone can look at the price of a good or commodity and see that less of it will be demanded as the price rises. That eventually causes an oversupply so prices will have to fall. Think about what will happen when Nintendo finally increases the supply of NES Classics (but probably long after the holiday craze has worn off). As of this post, the price on Amazon is $225, but the MSRP is just $60. As supply picks up and meets demand, prices will eventually adjust back to $60.
Taking it a step further, we can add a price control that artificially keeps prices high (or low). Think about farm subsidies (or rent control). That basic economic theory states that if the market isn't able to clear because of some outside interference, then the market will be inefficient and is therefore unquestioningly a bad thing.
So what does economic theory say about the minimum wage? Following the basic theory, we can consider a minimum wage to be a price control that artificially sets wages above equilibrium. That means there will be fewer "buyers" of labor. So many point to that and say it clearly leads to job losses.
But how does that actually stack up in reality? We've raised the minimum wage dozens of times over the last century and there has not been a single time in which an increase in the Federal Minimum Wage has led to job losses. But this isn't anything new. Back in the 1990s, two economists began working on a study that compared different minimum wages across state lines. What Card and Krueger (AER, 1994) found was that an increase in the NJ minimum wage had no significantly different shifts in employment relative to next-door PA which operated at the Federal minimum.
OK so what gives? As it turns out, minimum wage jobs are not desirable (imagine that!). Without getting into the more complicated monopsonistic economic theory, let's think about what would happen if there was a town that had only one employer. And if it was a pretty lousy employer offering a very low wage so nobody really wanted to work for them. Some people would have to do it because they really needed the money. But many would decide it wasn't worth it and instead would start their own business or chose to make money Ubering or reselling NES Classics on eBay. If the wage increased, some of those people might now decide it would be worth while to actually apply for the job. That would be an increase in labor supply. The people coming into the market now would be slightly better off (and more skilled) than those that were already in the market initially. And so with that increase in wage, the average level of productivity would begin to rise. That means the company would actually end up doing a little better and, in turn, begin to hire more workers.
The lesson here is that the economy is not static -- it's always changing. And if the government can enact policy that increases worker productivity, that's almost always a good thing for economic growth. Let's hope we end up with some real economists advising the President on fiscal policy and not Meatloaf.
Taking it a step further, we can add a price control that artificially keeps prices high (or low). Think about farm subsidies (or rent control). That basic economic theory states that if the market isn't able to clear because of some outside interference, then the market will be inefficient and is therefore unquestioningly a bad thing.
So what does economic theory say about the minimum wage? Following the basic theory, we can consider a minimum wage to be a price control that artificially sets wages above equilibrium. That means there will be fewer "buyers" of labor. So many point to that and say it clearly leads to job losses.
But how does that actually stack up in reality? We've raised the minimum wage dozens of times over the last century and there has not been a single time in which an increase in the Federal Minimum Wage has led to job losses. But this isn't anything new. Back in the 1990s, two economists began working on a study that compared different minimum wages across state lines. What Card and Krueger (AER, 1994) found was that an increase in the NJ minimum wage had no significantly different shifts in employment relative to next-door PA which operated at the Federal minimum.
OK so what gives? As it turns out, minimum wage jobs are not desirable (imagine that!). Without getting into the more complicated monopsonistic economic theory, let's think about what would happen if there was a town that had only one employer. And if it was a pretty lousy employer offering a very low wage so nobody really wanted to work for them. Some people would have to do it because they really needed the money. But many would decide it wasn't worth it and instead would start their own business or chose to make money Ubering or reselling NES Classics on eBay. If the wage increased, some of those people might now decide it would be worth while to actually apply for the job. That would be an increase in labor supply. The people coming into the market now would be slightly better off (and more skilled) than those that were already in the market initially. And so with that increase in wage, the average level of productivity would begin to rise. That means the company would actually end up doing a little better and, in turn, begin to hire more workers.
The lesson here is that the economy is not static -- it's always changing. And if the government can enact policy that increases worker productivity, that's almost always a good thing for economic growth. Let's hope we end up with some real economists advising the President on fiscal policy and not Meatloaf.
Earworm of the Afternoon -- Hard to Imagine
Working on something in-depth and traveling today, so light posting.
Robert Reich's First 100 Day Resistance Plan
Worth a read. A few of my favorites:
Some of the rest are unlikely to work, but that's OK. We need all the good pushes we can get. Please, Dr. Reich, less of the Democratic purity stuff (we really are as close to a liberal ideal for the party as we've been since at least 1972), and more of what we, as a party, as well as any defectors who have the scales lifted from their eyes, can do together.
1. Get Democrats in the Congress and across the country to pledge to oppose Trump’s agenda. Prolong the process of approving choices, draw out hearings, stand up as sanctuary cities and states. Take a stand. Call your senator and your representative (phone calls are always better than writing).We should keep in mind that it would help to have a majority on some things, so we should make a point of calling Republicans that might be a bit squishy, as well (there aren't many).
7. Website containing up-to-date daily bulletins on what actions people are planning around the country, and where, so others can join in. Techies, get organized.Hey DNC? Get on this.
9. Lawsuits: Our version of “Drill, baby, drill” is “Sue, baby, sue.” Throw sand in the gears. Lawyers, get organized.Everything we can do on the legal front helps. Merrick Garland, anyone?
Some of the rest are unlikely to work, but that's OK. We need all the good pushes we can get. Please, Dr. Reich, less of the Democratic purity stuff (we really are as close to a liberal ideal for the party as we've been since at least 1972), and more of what we, as a party, as well as any defectors who have the scales lifted from their eyes, can do together.
Professional Left Podcast: Episode 363 -- We Resist
Ari and I both listen to Driftglass and BlueGal every week (and pass them a few shekels when we can), and you should too. Here's the latest episode.
BlueGal today: "CNN is a toilet." Can't be said enough. Thank you.
BlueGal today: "CNN is a toilet." Can't be said enough. Thank you.
Friday, November 18, 2016
Breaking Down the Vote by Geography in Pennsylvania, Part II
Back on the topic of the results in Pennsylvania and what we can learn from them, if the Dems have in fact alienated rural voters to an extent where it'll be very tough to overcome by getting out more of the urban and suburban vote, then we need to place a ton of resources into, as Booman (Martin Longman) says:
I'd like to throw one more thing into the mix by playing devil's advocate for a minute here.
Putting aside the racist and xenophobic messages, which I do think were important to Trump's winning over these voters, could it be that the combination of the candidate and his method of campaigning (which I admittedly watched with glee because I thought they were totally the wrong way to campaign), was perfect for reaching the rural voter? After all, rural America was the home of the traveling road show, the medicine show... messages spread out throughout the countryside about the miracle snake oil? Was Rudy Giuliani the geek?
Do the Republicans have any other raging assholes (yes, in spades), with the demagogic charisma (maybe?), with the kind of celebrity (sorta), who could pull off the campaign Trump did? Not on the same level. Assuming for a minute that the rural splits from Pennsylvania hold for other states the Dems need, could Trump's unique brand of circus rage-gasm have been the difference between that 70-30 2012 split in rural areas in 2012 and the 80-20 one in 2016? If so, that's something we need to take into consideration. I don't see the Republicans selecting anyone "moderate" if Trump doesn't run for re-election (it still hurts my head to think that the "re" part is a thing), but whether they do or don't might be a major factor in how the Democrats should strategize going forward. Ted Cruz might be the heir apparent, and I think he doesn't fit the Trump mold that well. Would Jeb! draw 15,000 people three times a day?
While you think about it, here's a better medicine show:
Unfortunately, this can’t be swept under the rug. And the Democrats cannot afford to make this political behavior become habitual and culturally ingrained in the North as it already is in the South.
Progressives need programs, strategies and organizing in these communities. And they need it now.We need that no matter what. Even if we could win the presidency every time without rural voters, we still have Senate, House, gubernatorial, state legislative, and other seats to win. At the same time, we do not have unlimited resources. Someone with access to more data and more time to crunch numbers will have to determine the proper allocation of resources. We'll also have to think about how to break the bubble of right wing media.
I'd like to throw one more thing into the mix by playing devil's advocate for a minute here.
Putting aside the racist and xenophobic messages, which I do think were important to Trump's winning over these voters, could it be that the combination of the candidate and his method of campaigning (which I admittedly watched with glee because I thought they were totally the wrong way to campaign), was perfect for reaching the rural voter? After all, rural America was the home of the traveling road show, the medicine show... messages spread out throughout the countryside about the miracle snake oil? Was Rudy Giuliani the geek?
Do the Republicans have any other raging assholes (yes, in spades), with the demagogic charisma (maybe?), with the kind of celebrity (sorta), who could pull off the campaign Trump did? Not on the same level. Assuming for a minute that the rural splits from Pennsylvania hold for other states the Dems need, could Trump's unique brand of circus rage-gasm have been the difference between that 70-30 2012 split in rural areas in 2012 and the 80-20 one in 2016? If so, that's something we need to take into consideration. I don't see the Republicans selecting anyone "moderate" if Trump doesn't run for re-election (it still hurts my head to think that the "re" part is a thing), but whether they do or don't might be a major factor in how the Democrats should strategize going forward. Ted Cruz might be the heir apparent, and I think he doesn't fit the Trump mold that well. Would Jeb! draw 15,000 people three times a day?
While you think about it, here's a better medicine show:
Quoted Without Comment
Another one from President Obama from the Remnick article:
“Donald Trump is not an outlier; he is a culmination, a logical conclusion of the rhetoric and tactics of the Republican Party for the past ten, fifteen, twenty years,” he continued, noting that Trump was “able to distill the anger and resentment and the sense of aggrievement.”
Breaking Down the Vote by Geography in Pennsylvania
I've been mulling over this post by Martin Longman from a few days ago about voter turnout in Pennsylvania. He lives in suburban Philly and knows the area well.
First, why didn't this show up in the polling? Going into Election Day, 538's polling averages had Clinton up 3.7%, a pretty substantial lead. I'm not a statistician, but this would be pushing the boundaries of the margin of error. I'm trying to look at the crosstabs for the final CNN poll, but there's no geographic breakdown. Did the polls generally undersample rural areas? It's going to be tough for us to know how to properly campaign and GOTV if we're not polling correctly.
Second, was this the case in other states where Dems underperformed the polls, such as NC, FL, OH, WI, and MI? I haven't had a chance to take a look yet; I'm wondering if anyone else has. If this was the case, Longman is probably right. In the David Remnick New Yorker article I talked about yesterday, he mentioned that one of the first signs that Obama and his political director saw something being wrong was that there were surprising results coming out of rural areas in Florida.
I don't think we're anywhere near making conclusions, and won't be for a while, but I'll have another post up in the next 24 hours with a little more about Longman's post, particularly about why the Dems would be having problems in rural areas and what they might do to change that.
It’s not rocket science to figure this out. Clinton got more votes out of the cities and more votes out of the suburbs (where turnout was actually up) and she still turned a 300,000 cushion into a nearly 70,000 vote defeat. What happened is that where Obama lost the smaller more rural counties in the 70-30 range, Clinton lost them in closer to an 80-20 range. And if you spread that out across the commonwealth’s 67 counties, it swamped the Democrats and cost them not only the state’s 20 Electoral College votes but what should have been a pickup of a U.S. Senate seat.
For Clinton, and most observers, it wasn’t thought possible that she could lose if she not only netted her votes out of the cities but did better than Obama in the suburbs. It made perfect sense for her to stay focused on urban turnout and persuasion in the suburbs and she undoubtedly met all her benchmarks.
Now, Pennsylvania is unique in some ways and it can’t be perfectly compared to any other state, but this general phenomenon can be observed in Florida and in Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin, too.
What happened here wasn’t a general failure to persuade white professionals in the suburbs or to mobilize the targeted cities in key swing states. It was a collapse of Democratic support in areas that were already voting heavily against the Democrats by unhealthy percentages.
People will want to go over these results with a fine-toothed comb, and I await that analysis, but the collapse of the Democrats in these rural counties isn’t tolerable if the left ever wants to control the House of Representatives or the state legislatures in most of the country. I know people are angry that these voters were willing to overlook or even actively support Trump’s racist idiotic campaign, but the Democrats will need to do better than winning 20% in these areas. It’s likely that the suburbs will continue to move away from the Trumpian Republican Party and that may solve the Electoral College problem. It won’t solve the other problems, though.Two issues here:
First, why didn't this show up in the polling? Going into Election Day, 538's polling averages had Clinton up 3.7%, a pretty substantial lead. I'm not a statistician, but this would be pushing the boundaries of the margin of error. I'm trying to look at the crosstabs for the final CNN poll, but there's no geographic breakdown. Did the polls generally undersample rural areas? It's going to be tough for us to know how to properly campaign and GOTV if we're not polling correctly.
Second, was this the case in other states where Dems underperformed the polls, such as NC, FL, OH, WI, and MI? I haven't had a chance to take a look yet; I'm wondering if anyone else has. If this was the case, Longman is probably right. In the David Remnick New Yorker article I talked about yesterday, he mentioned that one of the first signs that Obama and his political director saw something being wrong was that there were surprising results coming out of rural areas in Florida.
I don't think we're anywhere near making conclusions, and won't be for a while, but I'll have another post up in the next 24 hours with a little more about Longman's post, particularly about why the Dems would be having problems in rural areas and what they might do to change that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)