Is liberalism really middle-class-friendly? (salary, suspect, Dodd, Barack Obama)

[wutitiz]

In my experience, the answer seems to be no. I have a bunch of friends about my age (50's) who are all blue-collar, union middle class workers. Annual incomes range from $50 to $75K. All punch a timeclock, and all pay union dues. Almost all of them also grew up in the city of Seattle and all have plenty of stories about the city back in the day. But out of 30 guys, only two still reside in Seattle, and of those two, one wants to move. Why? The fact is that the city is just not friendly to the middle class. It's main appeal is to 3 groups: 1)the rich; 2)the poor 3)20 somethings who haven't yet started families.


Seattle is now one of the most liberal cities in the country, but it wasn't always the case. From what I've been told, there were even state legislators of the R variety from Seattle until the 70's and 80's. That is a bird now completely extinct. All state legislators from Seattle have been D for quite some time. US Rep Jim McDermott, one of the more liberal members of the House, typically wins re-election by around 80%.

A quick glance at census data bolsters my impression.
Seattle (city) QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau

Home ownership, perhaps a sine qua non of middle-class-hood, is only 49 pct in Seattle, 65 pct in the rest of the state. Median income is slightly higher in Seattle than the rest of the state, but so is the percentage of people in poverty. Seemingly contradictory, unless you consider my assertion that the city is conducive for the poor and the rich, but not the in-between.

I also suspect you could find similar results in other liberal bastions. A couple years ago I was in SF and got talking to a guy working at a bookshop. When he found out I was from Seattle, he started asking me about it, saying he wanted to relocate. His complaint--on a middle class salary, he couldn't afford SF's high cost of living.

Under what sort of politics does the middle-class thrive best? I don't think the answer is liberalism.

[Hot_Handz]

Liberalism is lazy and sense of entitlement friendly

[Frank DeForrest]

liberals love to have government do their bidding,which makes the price of everything rise and level of service drop, so I'd say they are bad for all classes.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by wutitiz

Home ownership, perhaps a sine qua non of middle-class-hood

This idea did not exist before the New Deal.

It is a sign of how influential FDR was that even many conservatives use his political vocabulary and claim to draw upon his ideas.

[alphamale]

Unions are socialist and socialism isn't friendly to anyone who thinks for themselves.

Equal work for equal pay my arse.

When I was a union employee, I was clearly more productive than anyone else, yet earned the same pay. I'm certain that some of you have been or are in this same situation. Not to mention the nepotism aspect, especially in the public sector unions.

[geofra]

It is not correct to blame liberal politics on the expense of living in a city. If the demand for limited living space drives up the cost of living space that's the market at work, IMHO.

[marcopolo]

American-style liberalism is essentially anti-human at its core. The poor suffer from "the soft bigotry of low expectations." The ideal of working your way up is dismissed. The confusion of hard work and personal effort with mere luck discourages the natural impulse to improve one's condition. The anti-free-market tenets slander all business people.

Out here in the real world, 99% of what goes on in business is people working hard to deliver more value than the competition, to win the votes of people voting with their wallets. But the liberal thesis is that business prospers by screwing people, a total myth--except where government has colluded with business to create monopolies or oligopolies. (Watch Dodd Frank drive the small banks into the arms of larger banks, increasing concentration, reducing competition, making the big bigger and the small, struggling to keep up with the regulatory onslaught.)

We are seeing the natural conclusion of the liberal agenda personified in Barack Obama. Shut down power plants, shut down energy production, shut down smaller enterprises, discourage capital investment that leads to jobs, take the budget deep into the red to benefit special friends, demonize the makers and fill the takers' heads with envy.

The goose that lays golden eggs is being cooked to serve an unearned banquet to the undeserving. One wonders what the end game is: who benefits by our national impoverishment?

I will vote for a different incompetent thief in the hope that we will end up with one who is less likely to destroy the unique features that made America great.

[geofra]

Originally Posted by marcopolo

... the liberal thesis is that business prospers by screwing people...

Not really correct, but on the right track.

Business prospers by making a profit. Whether it can be made by being beneficial to people, by "screwing" people as you say, by cutting corners, by hiring or firing people, by whatever means, that is what a business will do.

Maybe liberals take a more cynical view and conservatives take a rosier view of businesslike behavior, no ideology is perfect.

[noexcuseforignorance]

Giving one example doesn't prove your point at all. I could find a poor city in a red state and say that conservatism was bad. Would that make sense to you?

Seattle has a high cost of living due to policies put in place to prevent urban sprawl. It really has nothing to do with liberalism. There's also a lot of high paying jobs in the area, so the cost of housing is high. There are plenty of middle class people there.

Home ownership isn't a requirement of being middle class. The demographics of the city are also skewed given the number of young professionals and people in general moving to the city.

[malamute]

Not at all. Liberals despise the hard working taxpaying responsible middle class.