• @goldenlocks
    link
    0
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Cherry picked chart, also wealth inequality is more important. You misunderstood my previous comment, Clinton was not good on inequality, it was the opposite. He started the trend of abandoning workers with NAFTA and it’s gotten worse ever since. It was the Dems before him that were decent. Those Dems are long gone now.

    Look at what you’re trying to celebrate with that article:

    Bunny White, 65, is a cashier at pro sports stadiums in New Orleans. She was part of a movement at her workplace to form a union, and they secured their first contract in early April. The result? Her pay will go from $12.50 an hour to $16 an hour, she said. To help pay her bills, she has a second job at a private catering company and also occasionally drives for Uber or Lyft, or delivers meals for DoorDash. Now, she said, she has more flexibility to take time off.

    Living paycheck to paycheck still, no future for them, even stating they would need more raises to have savings. All of this is irrelevant considering how bad wealth inequality is.

    https://www.aspeninstitute.org/blog-posts/charts-that-explain-wealth-inequality-in-the-united-states/

    It’s getting worse because of the Dems shift to neoliberalism, there is no counter to Republicans economic policy. Only way to stop it is to not vote for them and instead express democracy and vote for a candidate that has decent economic policy.

    • mozzOP
      link
      fedilink
      2
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Clinton was not good on inequality, it was the opposite. He started the trend of abandoning workers with NAFTA

      Yes, 100%. This part I agree with; Clinton was very bad.

      and it’s gotten worse ever since

      This part I also agree with.

      You spent a long time restating your claim that the Democrats are responsible for all of that and that the trend is accelerating with successive Democrats, neither of which I agree with, and I already laid out some data to say why. Did you have some kind of data or something to back up the argument?

      (I saw your chart… it’s hard to draw too many conclusions from just 3 data points on the X axis but it looks to me like what it shows is what I said: Inequality got massively worse under Reagan, Clinton, and Bush 1 and 2, and then tapered off although still getting worse under Obama, and nothing is shown after that. I.e. I’m not sold that that chart means that Democrats are the ones doing it.)

      • @goldenlocks
        link
        -19 months ago

        Like you said income and wealth inequality is a complicated topic, the link I posted has several graphs and statistics, and from looking around most studies show wealth inequality is getting worse. It’s not entirely the Dems fault, I’m saying they’re not doing enough to oppose the Republicans and that having an competitor like the Green party start to grow in support would push the Dems to do more about it

        • mozzOP
          link
          fedilink
          19 months ago

          having an competitor like the Green party start to grow in support would push the Dems to do more about it

          Sounds great. I like the idea. How can I help the Greens become a more serious contender in the future?

          Also, how does risking Trump winning the general election in November assist in that effort in any way?

          • @goldenlocks
            link
            18 months ago

            Bare minimum vote for them and get your friends and family involved in politics as well. I’m doing that as well as donating and doing social media outreach.

            Because we need momentum, we get 5% this year, maybe 10% in 2028. If we instead vote for Dems we will gain nothing.