It takes some serious cognitive dissonance to take a study from the Heritage Foundation and a study from the CEPR and say "there's common ground here." If you put it that way, I'll put it this way: With no incentive to provide a living wage, industry requires Americans to compete against 3rd world labor in pursuit of profit that, instead of "trickling down", accumulates amongst those already in possession of the majority of national capital. Right. Well, at least we all agree that poverty exists. No, many conservatives don't give a fuck. There is exactly nothing about the conservative platform that values "equal opportunity" nor has there been since Teddy Roosevelt. What makes people poor? Wealth accumulation. What is the goal of the Republican Party? Wealth accumulation. This is not a mystery, nor is it something worthy of deep thinking.What if we put it together this way? Automation, foreign competition and outsourcing lead to a decline in well-paying manufacturing jobs, which, in turn, leads to higher levels of unemployment and diminished upward mobility, which then leads to fewer marriages, a rise in the proportion of nonmarital births, increased withdrawal from the labor force, impermanent cohabitation and a consequent increase in dependence on government support.
which, in turn, leads to higher levels of unemployment and diminished upward mobility, which then leads to fewer marriages, a rise in the proportion of nonmarital births, increased withdrawal from the labor force, impermanent cohabitation and a consequent increase in dependence on government support.
many conservatives fail to see the extent to which equal opportunity, a central principle of our national self-understanding, is becoming harder to achieve.
I agree with you, and I actually think that Edsall probably does too. I think he's using some creative arguments that, while perhaps unconvincing, are his attempt to try to lure conservative into the debate. From what I know of his writing, of which I am normally a fan, he is a center left thinker who doesn't normally shy away from telling conservatives how wrong they are on the issue of inequality. I think he's using flattery for their 'ideas' to try to convince them that we need them to help to rectify the centuries of wrongs in this country. The mainstream conservative movement seems intransigent on the issue of poor people, but at some point they need to be engaged to be won over (or maybe they'll all die; I suspect, however, that's too hopeful, as young liberals will grow up to be conservative replacements for the deceased as soon as they inherit mommy and daddy's estate). The other alternative, of course, is that low income people can be both educated and convinced to vote in numbers that actually make a difference.
I'll take your word for it. If I'm not intended as the article's audience, it's okay that the article struck me as idiotic and tone deaf. I think the conservatives are fucked, frankly. Mommy & Daddy are a lot less likely to have an estate in this day and age (granted, if they have one it's likely to be bigger than grandpa's). That's the bugbear of wealth concentration - fewer Joneses, easier to keep up with. Every analysis I've seen points to the fact that Millenials are investing less and saving more than any generation since the Great Depression... a demographic like that doesn't swing for trickledown they swing for socialism. Meanwhile, they're growing up not really caring about gay marriage, living in a country that's steadily legalizing marijuana and in an environment where "terrorists" are the closest we can get to a bodily enemy but giant corporations surround them to fuck up their day.