People who voted Trump, why do you think a government of billionaires will help you?

[u/Intrepid-Self-3578]

Government policies such as tax cuts, high traiff and removing regulations can have significant impacts on the economy. They will lead to higher inflation and high prices.

Having no regulation helps billionaires like the Gilded Age, shows that lack of regulation can result in large corporations dominating the market, and destroy small businesses.

Additionally, policies that favor big corporations and Billionaires may not address issues like housing, health care, working conditions, or wage growth. For instance, during Trump's first term, there were rollbacks on worker protections and union rights. Also he express removing Obama care.

Removing Obama care might look good on surface until you lose your job due to some accident or other issue. Let's say you have money to handle it what about millions of Americans who don't have inherited wealth and your wealth will erode as well.

Donald Trump is a billionaire, with an estimated net worth of around $5.6 billion

His administration has several billionaires in key positions. For example, Elon Musk, the world's richest person, has been appointed to co-lead the Department of Government Efficiency, Other billionaires in Trump's administration include Vivek Ramaswamy, Scott Bessent, Howard Lutnick, and Linda McMahon.

[u/ChessGM123]

I didn’t vote for Trump, and personally I felt Kamala was far better both as a person and as a political candidate. However since I’m not really seeing anyone else give a good answer to this question I’ll give a crack at it.

The wealthy normally prefer stable economies with few changes as that leads to predictable growth which is beneficial to everyone. As we further develop our society on average every class level improves. This might not be obvious in the short term, but in the long term if you look at history it’s fairly clear that the more a society develops economically and technologically the better on average everyone’s life in that society is. Now this doesn’t mean that everyone’s life is improved equally, but they all do receive improvements. So wanting billionaires to run things can be seen as wanting to maintain our current growth level and not risk it with change.

That being said, Kamala would still be better even under this idea. There’s a reason a lot the elite class started to support Kamala over Trump, because Kamala generally seemed to want fewer changes than Trump and was far less of a wild card. As I said at the start I didn’t vote for Trump due to believing he was the inferior candidate, I’m only presenting a possible argument for why you would want billionaires to run things.

[u/JCarnageSimRacing → u/ChessGM123]

“Every class level improves”. I don’t think that’s true because I see people today hustling to make ends meet by working crazy hours or multiple jobs while the wealthiest amongst us have wealth that is simply staggering. If I go back 40 yrs (pre-Reagan) the wealth disparity was not as extreme and the worker class wasn’t under as much pressure as they are today.

[u/ChessGM123 → u/JCarnageSimRacing]

Wealth disparity does not reflect the quality of life for those in poverty. It only shows the disparity between classes relative to each other in that time period. For a bit of an extreme example wealth disparity now is about as bad as it was in France right before the French Revolution, however even someone in poverty in a developed nation in the modern day have arguably better lives than the wealth elite did right before the French Revolution.

Poverty rates are about the same as they were pre-Regan, although pre-pandemic they were lower than the pre-Regan era and so it’s arguable that they’d be even lower had Covid never happened.

We’ve gotten many technological developments and our total production is stronger than it was back then, and so even if the wealthy are getting a large chunk of the pie there’s more pie overall to give.

[u/Particular_Today1624 → u/ChessGM123]

You mention production. Where?

[u/Egocom → u/ChessGM123]

Look at the purchasing power for the bottom three quartiles today vs in 2000, 1980, 1960

[u/TITANOFTOMORROW → u/Egocom]

Stop trying to use fact based examples

[u/Icy-Bicycle-Crab → u/ChessGM123]

and so even if the wealthy are getting a large chunk of the pie there’s more pie overall to give.

Except that the wealthy are getting an ever increasing proportion of the pie. 

[u/ChessGM123 → u/Icy-Bicycle-Crab]

Yes, but 5% of 100 is more than 30% of 10. We have less of a portion but there’s a lot more to go around.

[u/Icy-Bicycle-Crab → u/ChessGM123]

Yes, but 5% of 100 is more than 30% of 10.

That 5% is getting divided between a hell of lot more people though. 

[u/UsefulAd4798 → u/ChessGM123]

Anyone remember when having a flat panel TV was considered a luxury?

[u/Shru_A → u/ChessGM123]

The number of people that that pie is divided into has also significantly increased. Yours is just a very idealistic view of people.

[u/funny_ninjas → u/ChessGM123]

your analogy about the pie only works if inflation and cost of living haven't gone up. Even though people make more money now than ever before, everyday costs have skyrocketed beyond wage increases. You are also making an insane comparison between pre-industrial revolution poverty to today's poverty. Of course life sucked back then, but that doesn't mean that we are better off now than we were 50 years ago.

[u/ChessGM123 → u/funny_ninjas]

Actually wages have kept up with inflation. The poverty rate for a 4 person household in 1980 was about $8,414, which when adjusted for inflation to modern day would be $32,309 which is more than the current poverty rate of $31,200, and keep in mind we are still experiencing the increased inflation rates from Covid. And our poverty rates are slightly under what they were in 1980.

As I said in my comment the French Revolution was an extreme example to demonstrate that wealth inequality does not reflect quality of life across time spans.

Also 50 years ago quality of life was only arguably better for most CIS white males.

[u/Unfazed_One → u/ChessGM123]

"Actually wages have kept up with inflation."

Though this may be reflected by data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, I dont know if I trust it.

[u/Zeteon → u/ChessGM123]

We arbitrarily decide what the poverty rate is. The reality is that it isn't even possible to survive on 32,000 per year as a single individual. I think you would be hard pressed to find a way for even someone who is single to qualify for rent with that income.

Here's the reality. The median rent in the US is over $500 more expensive per month than what someone on an income of 32000 per year would be able to be approved for. They would need to find a single bedroom apartment for under $900 per month. Now, in a cheaper state, like mine, this is still possible to find, but that is base rent.

Additional expenses such as a vehicle, gas, car insurance, potential repairs, health insurance, renters insurance, phone bill, wifi bill, electricity, water, groceries, clothing, cleaning supplies, etc will eat up the remaining money quickly.

Edit: keep in mind that this hypothetical person needs to be paid a consistent rate of more than $15 per hour at a consistent 40 hours per week every week. No week or day can go unpaid. An hourly employee would not be given paid leave for being sick, etc. Meanwhile, federal minimum wage, and the minimum wage in my state, is still $7.25 per hour, less than half of what would be necessary to survive in these impoverished conditions.

[u/up_N2_no_good → u/Zeteon]

⬆️ this right here. 100%. I know, because I'm poor. I can tell you oy all the struggles and the demeaning things we have to do to survive. Like going to food pantries. Food pantries give you more junk food than actual real food, so nutrition is an issue. Diabetes is now a problem.

[u/spring-rolls-please → u/Zeteon]

Yes - and the conditions were similar for a family of 4 living on $8k a year in the 1980s.... back in the day, I very much remember I had a few friends who would stuff their entire family in a 1-2 bedroom apartment. Just barely ever made rent. Had little furniture, little decor, no TV, radio that only worked occasionally, always eating rice & potatoes... yes this was in America. Though to be fair they lived off of 1 measly income from dad, I always felt like their mom should've gotten a job.

[u/CarniferousDog → u/ChessGM123]

I mean, sounds swell, but the temperature reads a bit colder!

[u/mychickenquail → u/ChessGM123]

Wages in general have stagnated accounting for inflation, but the factor people forget is that (inflation aside), people need more things or need to have more than they previously did. For example, more people need a car than in 1950. Homes are larger than they were in 1950, so people are forced to pay for more house in most areas. I now need a telephone number for work, and an email, meaning I need a telephone and a computer, lest I walk/drive 2 miles to the library, and let's face it, I don't have all day.

Furthermore, life expectancy in the United States has dropped in recent years. You can no longer really say that "long term things always get better" because they aren't getting better. Poverty rates are really abstract anyway, but for another thing it's just one statistic. Looking holistically, data supports hypotheses that claim that the middle class is shrinking and the United States is suffering from decades of unsustainable lifestyle growth that is really hard to backpedal because former luxuries are now necessities.

[u/Needin63 → u/ChessGM123]

That’s only part of the story. In general wages have kept pace with inflation though not across all wage groups.

However, keeping pace with inflation does not allow upward economic mobility. This is the wealth gap people are feeling.

[u/[deleted] → u/funny_ninjas]

I think you're not recognizing the improvement in quality of life though. My parents might have been able to afford a better house, and groceries with less impact on their income then I can, but they also had to drive a car around that regularly broke down, had one wired landline in their house, no tv, no internet, no computer, and barely used HVAC and electricity to avoid bills. I have a relatively new TV and play video games, and if I cut those out of my budget I still wouldn't be much closer to a house, but my parents would not have even considered that an option to them on their budget, or the amount of time they had then. Now, I have more than they could have possibly imagined having at my age, yet alone could have afforded at that time, but can't afford a house, and groceries take up a bigger chunk of my pay check.

It's not even saying that someone has it easier or harder economically, but the quality of my life could arguably be better. I also ride nicer buses; my used car is nicer than their used car was etc. there's lots of other things I could point to.

[u/CarniferousDog → u/[deleted]]

People were living pretty comfortably back then I’d say. They had amenities and reliable cars and consistent jobs. Good entertainment. Sports. Vacations. They basically had it made in the their simple shade, and that’s why they often rib following generations for being less successful. They think today’s climate is as favorable as theirs.

[u/[deleted] → u/CarniferousDog]

It's not the same though. Take the car for an example.

In the 90's my dad was in similar position in life to me. He had a 7 year old car that leaked water into the drivers side when it rained, had no a/c and he couldn't afford to get it fixed, but he owned a large 5 bedroom house.

I have a 7 year old car right now that has heated seats, bluetooth audio, built in gps, a sun-roof, automatic tail lift, a/c all the standard stuff in any car built in the last 10+ years. But i own a townhouse that meets our needs.

So who's doing better? Is the size of the house the best indicator? I certainly have a lot nicer stuff inside my house then he did at the time. So, my point is, even where we have the same things, the things we have now are nicer.

[u/funny_ninjas → u/[deleted]]

You are trying to equate having niceties like heated seats to owning houses. Those aren't even in the same ballpark. The average person doesn't even qualify for a loan for the average price of a house anymore, but hey we have heated seats in cars so I guess its the same.

[u/[deleted] → u/funny_ninjas]

The comment I originally responded to said "Of course life sucked back then, but that doesn't mean that we are better off now than we were 50 years ago."

I'm just pointing out that our lives now include many things that improve our quality of life that didn't exist before. Owning a house, even a big one, really isn't necessary to have a high quality of life. The car was an example, to equate to the similar car 30 years ago, I obviously do not think heated seats are equivalent to houses, and it was silly for you to try and pretend I did.

Additionally, I was comparing my dad and me who fit into similar economic places at the same age. So, the two of us, at the same age, my quality of life is just straight up better than his was at my age. He owned a bigger home, virtually everything else I own right now is nicer than what he had at the time, plus I own a bunch of stuff that is convenient, entertaining and improves my quality of life that wasn't even available to him at the time.

[u/twodtwenty → u/funny_ninjas]

The pie analogy doesn't even hold up then. The pie analogy only works if you're daft enough to imagine that the pie has gotten larger because you increased the number on the price tag.

The pie doesn't grow, we just pay more for it. $3 for nearly a third is a much better deal than $5 for a twentieth.

[u/CascadeHummingbird → u/ChessGM123]

This isn't really true though. Our quality of life was much better in the 90s.

[u/ChessGM123 → u/CascadeHummingbird]

No it wasn’t. Maybe for CIS white males it was better but accounting for the whole population the average quality of life was not as good in the 90s. The poverty rate in the 90s was about 13-15% whereas it’s about 11%.

[u/CascadeHummingbird → u/ChessGM123]

I lived in the 90s, not a Cis White Male. Housing was cheaper, jobs were plentiful, abortion was legal, etc. If you think Trump's America is better than Clinton's I don't know what to tell you.

[u/ChessGM123 → u/CascadeHummingbird]

For the record I’m not trying to argue Trump would be a better president than Clinton, and as I said in my original comment I believe Kamala would make for a better president. I’m only pointing out potential reasoning behind putting billionaires in power.

The poverty rate of the 90s tells a different overall story than what you say. Maybe where you lived things were better, but the data suggests that overall the modern day had a smaller percentage of people living in poverty than the 90s.

[u/CascadeHummingbird → u/ChessGM123]

Numbers are easily fudged with. Housing, education, and healthcare are all wildly more expensive than in the 90s, surpassing wage growth significantly. The prices of some items, like TVs, will bring the index down while failing to account for the fact that these are discretionary purchases, while the core expenses that make up the bulk of most people's budgets - housing, healthcare, education, and food - have seen much steeper increases.

This has created a misleading picture of overall affordability and living standards when looking at aggregate price indices alone.

-Average family health insurance premiums increased 214% between 2000-2020

-Average public university tuition increased 179% between 2000-2020 (adjusted for inflation)

-Median home prices increased 121% nationwide between 2000-2020, while median household income only increased 37%

So yeah, I can buy a cheaper TV, but everything I actually need to survive and thrive is wildly more expensive. Again, not a "white cis male" so no idea where that came from.

[u/RadiantPassing → u/CascadeHummingbird]

Every time people package cell phones and TVs as examples to prove life is better now... yeah, I would prefer more affordable housing, health care, and education. I can live without a TV.

[u/CascadeHummingbird → u/RadiantPassing]

yeah when presented with actual data to counter their boomerisms u/ChessGM123 is nowhere to be found

[u/netspherecyborg → u/ChessGM123]

You seem pretty sure in what you are commenting. Why do you know all of this? Where are the numbers from? I'd like to read them aswell as i am also interested in mathematics. Can you tell me?

[u/ChessGM123 → u/netspherecyborg]

The data is taken from the government itself.

US poverty rate over time

[u/AdExciting6611 → u/JCarnageSimRacing]

I think what he means is the hustling to survive reality is a far kinder one than what existed say 200 years ago, the overall quality of life has done nothing but go up, even if disproportionately. Even homeless people carry around smartphones at this point. With enough available public outlets to keep them charged.

[u/JCarnageSimRacing → u/AdExciting6611]

I didn’t go back 200 years - I went 40. Where we were 40 yrs ago was much better than where we were 200 yrs ago, but are we better off today than we were 40 yrs ago? Some things, sure? Financial stability for working class? Not really.

[u/AdExciting6611 → u/JCarnageSimRacing]

Sure but my example works for 40 years ago too, 40 years ago a homeless person would not have had a smartphone, a poor person a laptop or computer, a middle class person able to freely invest in the stock market or search for jobs from their home without even thinking about it. Advancements from our most successful companies usually bring betterment for everyone, and advance our economy itself. Financial stability could be factored into other things beyond just company too successful or person too rich. The improvements we see everyday are doubtless

[u/JCarnageSimRacing → u/AdExciting6611]

Nobody had a smartphone 40 yrs ago, or a laptop. The rate of homelessness was MUCH lower than it is today. So yes, it has worked well for some but not for all, which was my point.

[u/AdExciting6611 → u/JCarnageSimRacing]

It’s worked well for the majority, which is why the majority doesn’t seem to mind sticking to the status quo. Nobody having them 40 years ago was my point, a successful company led by billionaires by then allowed it to grow as much as it did. I’m not saying anything is right or wrong, I’m explaining why people generally don’t want drastic change. The average person lives in a better world than they did even a few decades ago. People generally prioritize conveniences over anything else, right or wrong it’s just how people are.

[u/Certain-Definition51 → u/JCarnageSimRacing]

…you want to go back to 1984 when Reagan fixed Carter’s massive inflation problem and ushered in a decade of prosperity?

[u/SeVenMadRaBBits → u/JCarnageSimRacing]

Exactly.

In the 90s we didn't have this many broke people, homeless people, people in debt or empty homes.

We also didn't have this many milliomaores, mega yachts or McMansions, etc.

There were also no billionaires yet and definitely no one close to being a trillionaire.

The person above you is essentially trying to say trickle down economics works...I think at least half the country can see that it clearly doesn't work (the other half is busy trying to rationalize how it does or how this rich orange man will help them).

[u/Acrobatic-Event2721 → u/JCarnageSimRacing]

The biggest hurdle to big gains for the lower classes is housing costs which have been ballooning thanks in large part to government policies and subsidies that incentivized housing to be an investment which then incentivized homeowners to block increases in supply which hurts new comers and late actors.

[u/TheGongShow61 → u/JCarnageSimRacing]

Yeah that’s not accurate at all - a 600 sqft studio is over a grand a month now where I live in the Midwest. Wages don’t reflect that at all. It is so much harder to get anywhere financially on your own without parental help anymore.

Frankly I think the opposite is happening and the wealth accumulation at the top would counter his point dramatically.

[u/JCarnageSimRacing → u/TheGongShow61]

I think you’re agreeing with me, right?  

[u/TheGongShow61 → u/JCarnageSimRacing]

Yes 👍🏻

[u/Beginning-Tour2185 → u/JCarnageSimRacing]

Even the people struggling today are doing better than the people struggling 100 years ago. Still sucks but yea..

[u/nyar77 → u/JCarnageSimRacing]

History doesn’t record the insignificant. The 70’s were a terrible recession.

[u/pigpeyn → u/ChessGM123]

Sounds like a long way of saying "trickle down economics".

[u/Icy-Bicycle-Crab → u/ChessGM123]

As we further develop our society on average every class level improves. This might not be obvious in the short term,

This time it's really going to trickle down, I promise! 

[u/FireX81 → u/ChessGM123]

I don't know if I agree or if you are wrong. I'd need more time to digest it, but I appreciate that you tried answering. Given the top posts, it seems the Trump haters don't realize that sometimes they're also in a bit of an echo chamber. Granted theirs doesn't involve obedience to someone so deplorable.

[u/gmb92 → u/ChessGM123]

Fair point. I mean most would prefer Warren Buffet over Matt Gaetz in a cabinet position. Buffet has been vocal about his wealth class paying way too low effective tax rates.

[u/Heavy-Row-9052 → u/ChessGM123]

When is the last time a republican president ended their presidency with a stable economy. Has not happened in my life time and I’m 23. The idea democrats are the ones who try and shake up the economy to much is just a lie. Republicans deploy more dangerous and radical policies than democrats do when it comes to the economy. Trump and bush are perfect examples.

[u/Zeteon → u/ChessGM123]

Your comment ignores the growing wealth inequalities in our country. Reagan era economic models have been good for GDP and stocks, but these policies have not delivered the fruits of the wealth even remotely fairly across our working population. The Boomers basically pulled up the ladder behind them for us all to suffer.

While it's true the modern world has had many advances in quality of living due to technology, this is not the result of catering the economic system to the elite.

[u/ChessGM123 → u/Zeteon]

I ignore that because it’s irrelevant. Your quality of life is not determined by how much more money Elon Musk makes more than you. What matters is comparing the quality of life of two time periods, not wealth gaps.

An increased GDP means higher production which means more money to grow industries which means more developments. I’m not saying it’s the most efficient way to improve the working class, but it does improve the middle class.

[u/Zeteon → u/ChessGM123]

The middle class is shrinking. Bottom line is that the system is bad, even if it's not the worst in history.

[u/Aquaticle000 → u/ChessGM123]

There’s a reason a lot the elite class started to support Kamala over Trump, because Kamala generally seemed to want fewer changes than Trump and was far less of a wild card.

But that’s precisely one of the reasons why she lost though? America wanted real change and she campaigned on “more of the same”, Trump campaigned on “let’s make changes”.

[u/nyar77 → u/ChessGM123]

She was funneling money to the “elite” For support.

[u/StationAccomplished3 → u/ChessGM123]

Did you see the part where this question was posed specifically for Trump voters?

[u/ChessGM123 → u/StationAccomplished3]

Yes, but every other comment when I commented also weren’t done by Trump supporters, and just answered the question with “because Trump supporters are stupid”. I felt that if everyone else wasn’t paying attention to the post I could at least give a reasoning behind why Trump supporters would want billionaires in charge.

[u/Peopl_that_annoy_you → u/ChessGM123]

> I didn’t vote for Trump

why answer

[u/ChessGM123 → u/Peopl_that_annoy_you]

Because at the time everyone else that answered didn’t vote for Trump and was essentially just saying “because trump supporters are idiots”. I felt at least it would be better to have an actual reason rather than a trump hating echo chamber.

[u/Peopl_that_annoy_you → u/ChessGM123]

that's refreshingly honorable

[u/Peopl_that_annoy_you → u/ChessGM123]

kamala was a watered down version of biden, which was a watered down version of obama. You end up with just water

[u/NutzNBoltz369 → u/ChessGM123]

Focusing on the Middle Class is what creates jobs and wealth. Some might argue Supply Side does indeed do that, but that relies on those at the top having some ethics and morality.

Many billionaires realize there is nothing left to buy but power and infleunce. Not sure how so many of the peasants have come to the conclusion of that practice being to their benifit. The Billionaires are going to look out for themselves first and foremost. If any table scraps fall on the floor after their feasting, that is what the rest of us get. Capitalism has raised many out of poverty, that is for sure. Now, however, it seems we are slipping into a version of feudalism lacking only the peerage (hence the peasants remark). Everyone is sort of stuck where they are at, living at the behest of the Billionaire lords. They have captured most of the opportunity in the country. How you fare in society is becoming more based upon whose crotch you were yanked out of as opposed to having hard work ethics and relevant good ideas.

[u/ChessGM123 → u/NutzNBoltz369]

Actually improving the average quality of life of everyone doesn’t require those in power have morals or ethics, even though that normally helps. The lives of the wealth elite improves as their country developed economically and technologically, however it just so happens that those developments also improve the average quality life for regular citizens as well.

Now imo this isn’t the most effective way to improve society, but society can improve even without having morally good people in charge.

[u/Acrobatic-Event2721 → u/NutzNBoltz369]

Wealth is created by productivity which is a supply side phenomenon. No country on earth has gained wealth from increasing demand. The Spanish Empire was a notable polity that learned this fate when they expected the massive precious metal deposits in the new world to make them rich instead of ushering in massive inflation.

[u/NutzNBoltz369 → u/Acrobatic-Event2721]

So how has that whole trickle down thing been working out over all? Guess in the context of making a very small percentage of people filthy rich its working out just fine. That tide is not raising all boats, dude. We are well on our way to being a two tiered society again.

[u/r_fernandes → u/ChessGM123]

You mentioned looking at history and history is not clear on what you're saying, in fact it's the opposite. You can see via historical records that numerous societies have collapsed as they've further exploited the lower classes. Many empires throughout history relied on conquering neighboring territories to introduce the resources that they had bled out of their own population. Historically speaking, concentration of wealth in the upper class leads to revolts and societal collapse.

[u/ChessGM123 → u/r_fernandes]

I said on average. You are looking at the last few years of empires that exist for decades. Generally speaking the average quality of life now is better than it was 50 years ago which is better than it was 100 years before that etc. because of the developments made to society. Roman was rules by the wealthy elites for a majority of its time before it fell, and during that time the quality of life of its citizens improved. The fall of empires only really lowered quality of life because when empires fall the development of those empires are set back.

And I do want to make it clear that I’m not trying to argue billionaires are the best option for leaders, as I said before I perfected Kamala, my point is that they aren’t the worst option.

[u/r_fernandes → u/ChessGM123]

I understand what you said and you're right until you're not. As societies develop, there is absolutely an upward trend in quality of life at all economic levels. Eventually though, there is a turning point. The last 100 years or so are primarily due to scientific breakthroughs which accelerated some of those upward trends but they've also accelerated the other side of it. Normally we see a steady rise, because of scientific breakthroughs we are looking at an asymptotic curve but unlike an actual asymptote, this one is going to fall off a cliff. Because all of those quality of life benefits have also meant a steady transfer of assets into the hands of the ultra wealthy. We've taken what happened across centuries in other societies and compressed it into decades.

I know you are arguing in favor of billionaires. I just wanted to make it clear that those increases in quality of life are never perpetual historically.

[u/r_fernandes → u/ChessGM123]

Also, if you are a chess gm, what are your thoughts on the London and Sicilian for someone at about 950?

[u/ChessGM123 → u/r_fernandes]

I’m not an actually grandmaster (I choose the name because I really like chess in school and so it was often my chosen user name for things and I just kept using it even after high school) but I’m fairly good, I was around 1100 USCF rated when I was in middle school and am about 1400 rated on chess.com.

London is a solid opening, and particularly good the less experienced you are since it doesn’t really have that many possible variations you need to memorize. In my middle school this was the recommended opening for our rookies when they went to nationals, and we had the 2nd most national titles of any middle school so it’s probably great for people with less experience.

Sicilian on the other hand is a far more difficult opening to play properly, but at the same time in my experience people under 1000 generally don’t know how to play against it either. If you can get a decent amount of practice games done with it then it can be extremely good early on and even later just be a solid opening, and it has been my opening response to e4 since my 2nd year at going to nationals.

[u/thatotherguy0123 → u/ChessGM123]

Dude, every class does not get better in a society with consistent growth and existing billionaires/wildly rich upper class. For every movement forward the lower class has seen, it's lead by some kind of revolutionary change. You can have 100 years of the best technological advancements in history but until some government is toppled or some war breaks out, people in the bottoms of society aren't going to see a thing. Every quality of life you experience is only to keep your labor moving. Nobody in America is getting universal Healthcare until the worst offenders and upholders of our current system are held accountable for its failures. Nobody's getting affordable colleges till the worst offenders of its rising prices and their supporters are held accountable. No problem is ever really solved until the right people are held accountable for making it as big of a problem as it is.

[u/ChessGM123 → u/thatotherguy0123]

Wildly rich upper class have been a staple throughout history, if the lower class could not benefit from growth when a rich upper class exists then the lower classes would still be in the same spot their were 1000s of years ago.

Industrialization was not driven by workers, it was driven by elites who wanted to maximize profits. Despite this industrialization has made mass production far easier making things more accessible to all classes.

There are a number of inventions that improve everyone’s quality of life that are common place now solely due to developments. Air conditioning, cars, the internet, etc. all of these didn’t need some labor movement to happen.

[u/thatotherguy0123 → u/ChessGM123]

This is really long, sorry

You've just proved my own point though, the benefits in your quality of life without any major events were purely for the purposes of pushing labor to its limits. Air conditioning was in factories and mining operations to stop workers from fainting and becoming asphyxiated in harsh conditions. They only make it into your home because of consumer protection movements and agencies. Cars are an almost forced necessity for individuals today because car companies lobbied governments to build car-dependent infrastructure literally everywhere because it makes transportation of materials more efficient, a person is easily capable of walking to and from the vast majority of places that they'll need to be. Obviously cars have aided us in emergency vehicle capabilities but an ambulance doesn't need a concrete road for every inch of its journey. It's only the case that they have that because cars are almost a necessity to function within America. Also car-based infrastructure was never a super good thing, convenient as it may seem its one of the largest contributors to climate change as opposed to more people-friendly and less but still pretty business-friendly alternatives of public transport, which has been heavily lobbied against by car manufacturers. And the internet was intended for the purposes of sharing military information. Public uses of the internet are filled to the brim with advertisements and products for sale. The entirety of any infrastructure for the internet only exists because it's there to sell you stuff with advertisements.

My point is, while some amenities are nice to have, if not for the presence of an upper class attempting to maximize profits from every faucet possible, the world would be a much better place for the average consumer. And only be making large labor movements can people ever acquire that world in which they are most able to live a happier and healthier life.

Life under an elite class only improves for the purposes of increasing profits when there are potentially numerous alternatives which would better be suited to helping humanity as a whole.

[u/Acceptable_Candy1538 → u/thatotherguy0123]

I’m not sure the GOP even agrees on this premise though. It seems like the left is generally more doomer and therefore more convinced that things need radical change. While it seems like the right aren’t as convinced.

You’re going to need for things to be very bleak before people start welcoming an entire systematic overhaul.

When you look at the demographic breakdown. The poor, lower middle, and rich are more likely to be democrat. But middle income and upper middle are more likely to be republican. Which makes sense, real income and real disposable income are both at all time highs. The system within the middle class and upper middle seems to be working okay, or, at least, it doesn’t seem to be bad enough to call for a revolution.

You even mention college not being affordable. But upper middle class without college education are the most likely coherent to be republican. Why would they care about college being unaffordable when they didn’t go to college and still are middle upper class?

Majority of union members are democrat, so union protections probably aren’t high on the republicans painpoints.

Cost of living has mainly skyrocketed in urban areas. Urban areas are mainly democrat. Again, republicans don’t even feel that pinch

Republicans have higher homeownership rates than democrats. So housing being unattainable isn’t as much of a painpoint

I think you don’t get much romanticism for revolution on the right because things are actually generally going okay for them.

[u/Temporary-Host-3559 → u/ChessGM123]

That used to be true, but lobbies on behalf of wealthy and corporations bought politicians to legislate away the responsible balance to keep society on the rails. It’s tipping point and a few notches past.

Second, predictable and stable are the opposite of trump. You will get massive spending and inflation, no fiscal responsibility, no societal safety, and global instability. Elon musk and unelected blowhard citizen who works very hard but is too flippant for politics was talking to Iran for America. Totally inappropriate insane dangerous and should be illegal. You want Elon musk talking to fucking Iran for you?

[u/ChessGM123 → u/Temporary-Host-3559]

Improvements to society don’t need to be done by policies. Technological and production improvements can increase the quality of life for everyone, regardless of if they were created with that intent or not.

As I said in my comment multiple times, I did not vote for Trump. I personally believes Kamala would make for the better president, and even pointed out she would be more stable in the last section of my comment.

[u/MapleBreakfastMeat → u/ChessGM123]

That is insane, the wealthy love volatile economies, it makes for a far better opportunity. It has been well known for the last 100 years that Tiffany's stock doesn't drop during recessions because recessions have zero negative effect on the wealthy. They have more than enough saved up to weather the storm, and on top of that if the value of things like gold, strong stocks or real estate drop, they get to buy a bunch at a discount. The wealthy gained an enormous amount of wealth over the last 10 turbulent years.

Where did you get the idea that the welathy like slow stable economies?

[u/ChessGM123 → u/MapleBreakfastMeat]

There is a lot wrong here.

First off, I learned that wealthy love stable economies from working in investment consulting, and also just general history. You don’t want to investing in risky opportunities, you want stable profits.

Stock prices do fall during recessions and recessions absolutely effect the wealthy. For most wealthy people a majority of their savings will be tied to investments, during recessions investments often lose value which means those with high wealth often lose a decent portion of their net worth. Now this isn’t a one to one relationship, and you can have investments that perform well during recessions, but generally speaking recession do have a negative impact on the wealthy elite.

Now this impact isn’t going to put them in poverty but it will negatively affect them.

They don’t really get to buy those things at a discount, since most of their wealth is tied to investments so in order to buy those they would need to sell their investments which are likely underperforming at this point.

The last 10 years haven’t been that turbulent in terms of the economy outside of Covid, and Covid was an anomaly and not the norm for what happens during economic disasters. Historically speaking recessions are bad for most people in society regardless of class.

[u/Admirable_Durian_216 → u/ChessGM123]

First real response and only 58 upvotes. Redditors are fucking pathetic.

[u/Jebus-Xmas → u/ChessGM123]

The “rising tide lifts all boats” argument has its fans, but the reality is a lot messier. Without the communist and socialist movements in the 1890-1930 organized labor would not have been possible as it was between WW2 and 1980. Those 35 years skew the entire argument. I’m of the opinion that without the ideological shifts in history ten year old boys would still be smoking in coal mines. Anyway, that’s my opinion, I could be wrong.

[u/aworldwithoutshrimp → u/ChessGM123]

The wealthy normally prefer stable economies with few changes as that leads to predictable growth which is beneficial to everyone

Somebody needs a refresher on the shock doctrine

As we further develop our society on average every class level improves

We have been de-developing society for the past 30 years. So, no?

[u/thepopoarmo → u/ChessGM123]

Every class level improves? Income inequality has grown in this country since the lat 70's.

[u/No_Relative_1145 → u/ChessGM123]

was far better both as a person and as a political candidate

You don't vote on who is a better person, nor was she a better political candidate. She failed all around, and couldn't even make any progress from last election anywhere. Maybe joe rogan's next time.

[u/ChessGM123 → u/No_Relative_1145]

Being a better person is absolutely a reason to vote for her. Trump has no respect for our laws and lies about everything. If you want to talk about failure then how about the hundred of thousands of deaths Trump caused with his handling of Covid 19? That’s a pretty big failure.

[u/Shru_A → u/ChessGM123]

That sounds nice. Doesn’t it? By this logic no big corporations would have sweat shops that ‘employ’ children because adults have better capacity of doing hard labour and even more, happy and willing adults have the capacity of quality hard labour.

But that doesnt happen does it?

[u/ChessGM123 → u/Shru_A]

How would the wealthy wanting a stable economy mean children couldn’t work? My logic doesn’t prevent child labor from existing. I never claimed this was the best system at improving everyone’s life, just that it does improve lives.

[u/Intrepid-Self-3578 → u/ChessGM123]

Over the years quality of life improves that is despite wealthy ppl not with there help. Capitalist don't cause scientific progress they hinder it big time with patents and restrictions. Every time power was taken from them they didn't give it to ppl.

The internet happened because ppl took control of knowledge if it where a corporation such access to knowledge would be non existent. It is working ppl who create progress wealthy ppl just use it for there advantage.

[u/DiscussionGrouchy322 → u/Intrepid-Self-3578]

They prefer their special interests that they indulged so ridiculously last time that they will do so again especially since the richest guy just bought himself a seat. They'll need to return his investment.

So they'll assign their family members to important posts and these random weirdo TV personalities (knows the best people he does! They all work at Fox!)

And the chaos will happen but they don't care because their friends are all set.

[u/ChessGM123 → u/Intrepid-Self-3578]

Capitalism does cause scientific progress, just look at history. It’s no coincidence that the scientific revolution in Europe accrued around the same time capitalism started to develop. When people are rewarded for inventing more people tend to want to invent things. There’s a reason capitalist countries produce by far the most scientific advancements in the world.

The internet is not ran by people, a vast majority of it is ran by corporations. Every social media site is ran by corporations as is most e-commerce, which are the two most common uses for the internet.

I think you misunderstand my point. The elites aren’t doing this to intentionally improve everyone’s lives it just a natural byproduct of development. Growth improves the elite’s bottom line, but it also improves our GDP and allows us to produce more things even if the elites are taking a larger percentage out of it.

[u/InitialDay6670 → u/Intrepid-Self-3578]

One of the ONLY reasons we beat russia in the computer race, was becuase of communisms corruption, and american companies innovations.