366
Hopefully that demographic heads out to the polling stations in very large numbers.
Young women?
You bet your ass they will. They literally had old white guys tell them their only worth is making babies, and if some die, who cares?
Get out and vote, sane people! The crazy fucks make up 33-35% of any given population. Your job is to keep them from the levers of power!
Quick reminder that the current inflation rate is at 2.04% (https://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/federal-reserve-may-pretty-much-just-hit-2-inflation-target-rcna175099). It goes to show how well the media does with propaganda on how bad inflation is right now. Inflation isn’t even in the top ten of my election concerns.
Price increases seem to take long residence in people's minds. Prices are noticeably way higher than in 2019. Whether wage increases make up for that is kind of beside the point, psychologically. Collectively, big price hikes are traumatic.
Economists correctly talk about inflation as a rate of price increase, and they correctly consider real wages as a useful metric of well-being. But economists are academics and we use the word "inflation" in a colloquial sense, in a politicized real world, where it means "I have noticed that prices rose is recent memory and every time I go to the store I feel cheated."
But to be clear, it's not in my top 10 either (mine starts with climate, democracy, and freedom). Just sharing how I see the disconnect on inflation as a hot topic.
I agree. I think people are rightfully frustrated with the price of goods and services right now. But it’s really not in control of the government. It should be, but regulation is highly unlikely in our late stage capitalistic world. So I feel the media is portraying inflation as something that should be of concern this election. But it really isn’t. As you mentioned, freedom, the climate, project 2025 and others should be most important.
I think people are rightfully frustrated with the price of goods and services right now. But it’s really not in control of the government. It should be
Hard disagree. Capitalism isnt just "rich old white guys getting richer" - it's a way of letting markets flex and adjust on the fly. Supply chains and markets are way too complex for the government to simply control.
Well minimum wage should be keeping up with inflation. If everything gets more expensive and then suddenly isn't, it doesn't really help anyone until everyone also get paid more.
But that's more of a local government thing. I think we're getting something like that on the ballot in California, but poor red states probably don't have a chance in hell of passing stuff like that for themselves.
Absolutely true. Minimum wage is in governmental control and needs to go up with the increased costs of goods and services. But as you mentioned, probably not happening in the states that need it most.
Sure, we might have record unemployment, inflation can be low, and by most metrics the American economy is doing well. However people are feeling squeezed. They're spending more on rent, groceries, health insurance, other necessities than they have in their entire lives. Most people don't have the vocabulary to describe that economically so they use words they've heard. In most people's heads inflation=things are more expensive. So they complain about inflation even if that's inaccurate
I agree. But it is misplaced as you allude to. It isn’t inflation that the government can fix as much as it’s price gouging from unchecked corporations. But I totally agree with people feeling this way. I just wish the media portrayed inflation properly and just admit it’s not really in control of politicians as much as we would like it to be. Especially with lobbying and the massive lack of regulation.
It feels to me like inflation has improved now, but inflation (and accompanying gouging by companies due to having a nice clean alibi) was high for a while, we never saw wages really adjust enough to offset that much, and then things stopped getting more expensive.
So, cool, it's not getting worse at the moment. It got bad enough to fuck us and didn't really improve after that, but sure we can be glad we're not still sliding down hill. Yay.
To be clear, not one lick of that point of view is based on evidence, just my personal experience and the general observations I've made both in terms of reporting and in reality. I'd update my point of view if presented convincing evidence, but this sure seems to be the situation to me.
ETA: You did say "current" and "right now" and my comment turned out longer than yours lol, so maybe this is me barking up the wrong tree anyway
I don’t disagree. People are definitely hurting right now. But inflation is a general terms for the costs of goods and services. Much of the increase we saw from Covid was unchecked price gouging from corporations. It is not realistically in control of the president. Of course the government could regulate, and while they should, we all know that won’t happen on any scale that is needed. Therefore, believing that inflation is an important aspect to this election is misdirected anger over something that is in control of billionaires and massive corporations. I understand this misdirected aggression, but it’s a shame that people are focusing on that being the most important thing this November. To me, it’s avoiding fascism and project 2025.
It doesn't help that so many economists, the tech priests of capitalism, didn't believe that it could be a thing that companies were gouging people. They were blaming it on workers, high employment and high wages for the longest time and not the true culprits. I still feel like the media hasn't caught up with the cause, except for maybe Jon Stewart if you count him as part of that.
Inflation is explicitly not:
a general terms for the costs of goods and services
It's a general term for the change in the costs of goods and services. It's not a merely technical distinction and I think it explains the difference between your take and mine above.
Otherwise I mostly agree. I do think the president has a bit more indirect influence on inflation in particular than you're allowing, but otherwise I think we're basically on the same page anyway.
You mean how not bad your inflation is right?
I meant how bad the media claims it is. Thus people are treating it as a major concern of this election.
I'm hoping 2022 is an indicator of what is to come.
Is there any consensus withing the 'pro-choice' people about where the line is drawn? I haven't followed this debate much, but from my perspective it seems like people are just put into two groups as if the answer is either yes or no, but surely no-one is advocating for abortion rights at 8 months unless the mom's life is on the line, right?
Yes: fetal viability, and that’s been the standard for a long, long time
No one is advocating for abortions at 8 months unless the women's (or fetus') life is in some kind of danger.
Why on earth would a woman put up with the absolute hell that is pregnancy for 8 months, and then just wake up one day and decide "Meh, nvm, Im not actually all that into it" completely unprompted?
It makes no sense and it doesn't happen. At 8 months, numerous appointments have happened, a nursery of some kind has been put together, baby showers have been had, names have been picked out, vices of all kinds have been foregone (not just alcohol/smoking, modern women give up stuff like lunchmeats/fish/coffee) etc.
If a woman is getting an abortion at 8 months, something went very fucking wrong, and it's a tragedy all around, so we shouldn't add the stress of navigating legislation on top of all that.
But my question was about wether there was a consensus about where the line is drawn. This doesn't really answer that.
I think the stated position is that it's tough to legislate a line there because it should be a decision that is made between the woman and her doctor.
It might be possible to have legislation that draws a reasonable line while still largely recognizing a woman's right to choose... The problem is trust. We've seen that conservatives have repeatedly tried to use this line as a way to effectively ban abortions. For example, by setting a ban on abortions after 6 weeks, they effectively ban abortion because a woman might not even know they are pregnant by that time.
It's the same thing with Voter ID. We've seen Republicans attempt to use that as a tool for voter suppression, even claiming in public to their supporters that Voter ID would swing the election to the Republican. Does anyone actually support the right of undocumented immigrants to vote? Of course not. We know it's a bad faith position because if they really wanted to prevent undocumented immigrants from voting, they could just implement automatic voter registration and send people a free Voter ID. They won't do that because their goal is voter suppression.
Unfortunately this works the same with gun laws, conservatives are suspicious of any gun regulations, even the sensible ones that have majority support, because they've been told that Democrats want to take their guns and every regulation is a step down the slippery slope that ends with the feds going door-to-door to take their guns. So they don't want any line to be drawn.
There is no consensus. Some want no line drawn.
Women need to learn to mind their own business. Sheesh! \s
this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2024
366 points (98.4% liked)
News
23117 readers
3474 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS