talkpolitics | The "Grievance Industry"

Entry tags:

media,
right wing

The "Grievance Industry"

Many years ago, just after the end of Reagan’s first term, I was listening to a local Talk Radio host, Ronn Owens, doing a sort of “summing up” of the Reagan administration so far. He brought up Reagan’s question, “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?” and he said, “I gotta tell ya. Yes, I am. And everyone I know is better off too.”

Ronn invited his mostly white, middle-class listeners to weigh in. One after another they lined up to chirp about how well they were doing in Reagan’s America.

Then, he got a black caller, who informed the host, “I’m not better off. I’m not better off at all. In fact, things have gotten worse. And I don’t know one single black American who’s not doing worse.”

“Oh now sir,” Ronn said, with the air of someone calming down a hysteric. “don’t you feel you’re being a little myopic?”

I guess the farsighted, non-myopic approach would have been for the caller and all those other black Americans to think happy thoughts about how well Ronn Owens and the other white folks were doing, rather than focusing on their own petty concerns.

There has long been in the United States mainstream the unspoken assumption that a poor, female, gay, non-Christian or non-white person voting in his or her own interest is a form of whining rather than common sense, even though the stakes for these voters tend to be higher than the concerns of wealthy folks who don’t want to pay those extra taxes that could price them out of that second house in the Hamptons. The rule of thumb is, apparently – if you have a real grievance influencing your vote, like “I could lose my healthcare if the Republicans have their way” or “I could end up unable to afford birth control or unable to get access to an abortion” or “As a black American, I don’t want a guy who’s taking advice from Charles Murray deciding policy that’s going to affect my kids” or “My family could go hungry” or “I could end up in jail for having consensual sex with another adult” or “this guy wants to pass legislation that would endanger my right to vote” you are part of the “Grievance Industry.” And that’s a bad thing.

This attitude has recently been kicked into overdrive by the passing of ACA. The right wing is now in full panic mode over the horrifying discovery that people like being able to afford healthcare and are not going to like having that access taken away. Worse, these same people will actually vote in favor of their own physical and civic well-being. The right seems to think this is awfully unfair, and they believe it’s even more unfair for Democratic politicians to point out to these voters how much is at stake.

Joan Walsh at Salon puts it beautifully:

So let me make sure I understand. Telling your voters, accurately, that Republicans are trying to make it harder for them to vote, and are blocking action on pay equity, the minimum wage and immigration reform is unfair “grievance politics”? Likewise, any effort to deal with the scandal of $1 trillion in student loan debt? Oliphant compares it to the grievance politics practiced by Republicans under Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. But that form of grievance politics mainly relied on inflaming white voters’ fears of cultural and racial change with false or highly exaggerated claims about Democrats. (emphasis added.)

The difference between accusations that are accurate and accusations that are highly exaggerated or quite simply untrue is apparently unimportant, as far as some in the media are concerned.

I mean really, it’s all about whether or not they make people get all emotional. All that arm-waving and emoting about “I want to cast a ballot” or “I want my heart medication” or “I don’t want to end up homeless after my unemployment benefits run out” is JUST like those Republicans who said that black people were going to take over and John Kerry didn’t deserve his medals and gay people were going to kidnap your little boy and marry him. So vulgar!

Why can’t people directly affected by these policies stop horning into conversations that should really be conducted as abstract conundrums over cocktails at a DC reception?

*

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Assuming that the work is the same and all other things being equal yes it does matter.

The problem is that they usually aren't. If you're going to compare Coffeeshop Barristas to Crab-fisherman, as those aggregate graphs so often do, of course the crab fisherman are going to get paid more. An honest assessment would require breaking down the wage differences by industry, position, hours etc... But that's a lot of work that's not getting voters to turn out on election day.

As for the rest,

The single mother deserves exactly as much consideration as any other employee. She may get more or less than what she deserves but that's a seperate issue.

From an employer's perspective women tend to be more resource intensive than men. In general, they take more vacation days, have higher health-care costs, and tend to be more averse to both risk and hardship. All of these factors potentially effect the employer's bottom line and it would be irrational in to see them reflected in the hiring process.

s: The problem is that they usually aren't. If you're going to compare Coffeeshop Barristas to Crab-fisherman, as those aggregate graphs so often do

Which aggregate graphs do this? Cite please.

Any time you see one of those graphs with labels like average income of women under 25 vs. average income of men under 25.

Women are over-represented in some industries, medicine, HR, education/child development for example, and under-represented in risk-intensive trades like crab-fishing. Any aggregate graph looking at the genders as a whole is going to be effected by this disparities.

Cite.

Please.

A specific graph.

Most of them, including the president's 77% claim.

But this one from the wikipedia entry for

I'm sorry but there doesn't seem to be a link here. Can you try again?

Sorry HTML acting up.

Most of them, including the president's 77% claim (http://www.whitehouse.gov/equal-pay/myth#top).

But this one from the wikipedia entry for "Gender Pay Gap" in particular.

And where, exactly, is the breakdown that shows they are simply comparing barristas to crab-fishermen?

I ask because when I have looked closely at these kinds of statistics, (like those compiled for the census) the breakdown tends to be quite specific. Far from merely comparing barristas to crabbers, they compare the salaries of people working the same jobs within the same industries, and yes, in many the disparities remain. The fact that toting it all up results in an overall income disparity does not mean they are equating crab fishermen with people working the counter at Starbucks. It does mean that income disparities within various fields are consistently lopsided enough to affect the stat when they're all compiled as a group.

Edited 2014-04-20 16:43 (UTC)

The fact that toting it all up results in an overall income disparity does not mean they are equating crab fishermen with people working the counter at Starbucks.

Err yes it does.

Unless the gender distribution of a given trade is even, that trade will weigh the average towards one side of the graph or the other. Crab fishermen are predominantly male as such fluctuations in fishing income effect the male income average more than the female. Likewise if Starbucks employees are predominantly female changes in Starbucks wages will naturally effect the female average more than the male. If (for the sake of argument) there are 2 male welders for every female welder an increase in welder's wages will have twice the effect on male average income that it does on female average income.

Seriously, this is high-school level algebra, it should be obvious and intuitive.

Edited 2014-04-20 17:23 (UTC)

s: Err yes it does.

No, sorry, it doesn't, as anyone who has actually compiled statistics will tell you. And no, it's not "high school algebra." Statistics are actually more complicated, as professional statisticians (including those who compile and analyze census figures) are aware.

As for male and female dominated industries, part of the problem is that the salaries tend to be higher in male dominated fields than the salaries in female dominated fields. And even within female dominated fields, women's pay tends to be less than men who work within those fields.

"Within the 20 most common occupations for women, median full-time weekly earnings for women range from $1,086 per week for ‘registered nurses’ to $379 per week for ‘cashiers’ (Table 1). Women earn less than men in each of the most common occupations for women (these calculations include full- time workers only). The gender wage gap is largest for ‘retail salespersons,’ with a gender earnings ratio for full-time work of 67.5 percent (corresponding to $234 dollars less per week for women) and for 5 ‘financial managers,’ with a ratio of 70.1 percent (corresponding to $454 less per week for women)."

A link to the PDF showing these tables can be found here:

http://www.iwpr.org/publications/pubs/the-gender-wage-gap-by-occupation-and-by-race-and-ethnicity-2013/

You asked me to cite a specific graph and I did. Don't think for a moment that I haven't noticed you shifting the goalposts.

Statistics are actually more complicated, as professional statisticians (including those who compile and analyze census figures) are aware.

Actually, no they aren't. It is the manipulation of statistics to support predetermined conclusions that is complicated.

To illustrate...

A cursory examination of your source and your source's source, the US Bureau of Labor Satistics, shows that the average hours for a "full-time" worker are 35.4 hours a week for women and 41.3 for men.

As such the obvious conclusion is that if women were serious about equality they'd get off their collective-asses and work more overtime. Otherwise, if we disregard time-and-a-half, "equal pay" would still result in an income ratio of approximately 86 cents on the dollar. That's most of your "Gap" right there. Oddly enough the pdf you linked makes no mention of this.

I wonder why. ;)

Edited 2014-04-20 18:18 (UTC)

s: You asked me to cite a specific graph and I did. Don't think for a moment that I haven't noticed you shifting the goalposts.

It's not "shifting the goalposts" to ask you to back up your contention that the people who compiled the figures behind this graph did nothing more than compare barristas with crab fishermen.

What I had in mind was something akin to what I posted to you -- a detailed graph which, IF what you claimed was true -- would line the incomes of male crab-fishermen up next to that of female barristas and declare that evidence of male/female income disparity.

In fact, you know and I know that's not what happened.

s: A cursory examination of your source and your source's source, the US Bureau of Labor Satistics, shows that the average hours for a "full-time" worker are 35.4 hours a week for women and 41.3 for men.

Indeed. That's part of the problem, but not because women are a bunch of lazy bunnies who aren't "serious about equality" and are sitting on their "collective asses." It's because women tend to be the primary caregivers for kids. It's moms who generally end up with the kids when the dad walks, and moms have this funny thing about actually seeing their children, fixing their dinners, helping them with their homework, being home when the kid is sick, etc., etc.

That's why flexible and reasonable work hours are considered by many to be a feminist issue.

It's not "shifting the goalposts"...

I already did, but rather than acknowledge the touch you shifted the focus to a graph and source of your choosing. Don't get mad that I called you on it.

Indeed. That's part of the problem, but not because women are a bunch of lazy bunnies who aren't "serious about equality" and are sitting on their "collective asses." It's because women tend to be the primary caregivers for kids. It's moms who generally end up with the kids when the dad walks, and moms have this funny thing about actually seeing their children, fixing their dinners, helping them with their homework, being home when the kid is sick, etc., etc.

And if you were serious about closing the wage gap you'd be fighting tooth and nail to change this. There's no reason that fathers can not be primary caregivers more often, or for single women to not work just as much if not more than men.

Otherwise you can hardly ask employers to give special dispensation to one gender and not the other and NOT expect to see those factors reflected in wages and hiring decisions.

Anything else would be the exact opposite of equality.

s: I already did, but rather than acknowledge the touch you shifted the focus to a graph and source of your choosing.

I shifted the focus to the information I'd asked you for in the first place.

paft: Indeed. That's part of the problem, but not because women are a bunch of lazy bunnies who aren't "serious about equality" and are sitting on their "collective asses." It's because women tend to be the primary caregivers for kids. It's moms who generally end up with the kids when the dad walks, and moms have this funny thing about actually seeing their children, fixing their dinners, helping them with their homework, being home when the kid is sick, etc., etc.

s: And if you were serious about closing the wage gap you'd be fighting tooth and nail to change this.

What makes you think we aren't?

s: There's no reason that fathers can not be primary caregivers more often...

All it takes is those fathers stepping up to the plate. We've been waiting for years for that to happen. Of course, doing that takes certain career sacrifices...

s: or for single women to not work just as much if not more than men.

No reason? Single parents shouldn't worry about being home at least part of the time to care for their kids? Staying home with them when they're sick? Helping them with their homework?

s: Otherwise you can hardly ask employers to give special dispensation to one gender and not the other and NOT expect to see those factors reflected in wages and hiring decisions.

I think all parents, men and women, should be given more leeway by their employers here.

You know, kind of like those Scandinavian countries we were talking about a few threads ago, where there's a strong social safety net, the average work week for both genders is 27 to 35 hours instead of forward, and people enjoy roughly one months worth of paid vacation a year, plus generous periods of paid parental leave?

Those countries you were citing as ever-so-hard-working. Remember that?

I shifted the focus to the information I'd asked you for in the first place.

And I provided it, not my fault you didn't like it.

What makes you think we aren't?

So I can expect prominent feminist publications and pundits to be voicing thier support for father's rights any day now yes? Or maybe holding idiot college girls responsible for thier own drunkenness?

No reason? Single parents shouldn't worry about being home at least part of the time to care for their kids? Staying home with them when they're sick? Helping them with their homework?

You already know the answer to this. Now is the moment to demonstrate the courage of your convictions. (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1851460.html?thread=146070084#t146070084)

Seems to me you want all the privilege and none of the culpability, in the end how does that make you any different from the "sexists" you claim to oppose?

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject