I think that Francis Wilkinson is onto something in his most recent Bloomberg column but he hasn’t taken his reasoning far enough. Whether you call it the “professional class” as he does or the “creative class” or something else, that group is largely supporting the Democratic Party not only with their votes but financially and with their influence on the society.
Democrats, meanwhile, are increasingly reliant on what Thomas Piketty has called a “Brahmin†class of cultural and information workers. In his 1988 book “Honest Graft,†Brooks Jackson chronicled the nearly indiscriminate pursuit by then-Representative Tony Coelho of corporate funds for Democratic coffers. With labor unions in steep decline, Coelho led Democrats in shifting their attention to where the money was — the corporate sector. The funding shift accompanied the rise of market-oriented, corporate-friendly, neoliberalism in the party.
Today, party finances are ever more reliant on high-education professionals in cities and suburbs. From Jan. 1, 2019 to Aug. 31, 2020, the Federal Election Commission lists the top five professions for ActBlue donors as attorney, teacher, physician, professor and engineer. For WinRed, the newer, less successful, GOP competitor to ActBlue, the top five occupations (other than retired or not employed) are CEO, owner, sales, physician and president.
concluding
Indeed, they are funding their party as if life itself depends on it. Those funds can accelerate powerful changes already driven by demographics and pent-up demands for equality, justice and opportunity (or what Trump derisively calls “socialismâ€). The lopsided flow of money, however, will exert a powerful influence on the party’s direction. The Democratic appetite for change appears expansive. The contours of suburban comfort zones may yet prove more limited.
We are not the only country for which it is true. It is true of many if not most countries: the “professional class” is largely dependent for its incomes on government spending.
The challenge that produces for modern economies was recognized more than a half century ago by economist Joseph Schumpeter who also recognized that the “intellectual class” as he called it was likely to destroy the very system on which it depends for its livelihood. Such a system cannot succeed; it is a form of perpetual motion as I have pointed out numerous times before most pointedly in my observations about the cat and rat farm.
It is also a contributing factor to the income and wealth inequality that has developed in the U. S. over the last 50 years. Too frequently Democrats espouse a very funny kind of socialism in which vast amounts are devoted to paying professionals in the hope that the services they provide for the poor will make the poor better off. It may or may not but benefiting the poor by providing services for them does not improve income or wealth inequality.
To coin a phrase. Well blow me over.
https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morrissey/2020/10/02/nyt-editor-golly-anarchists-just-want-watch-world-burn/
But it raises the question: why do the professional classes support, or at least remain silent, about these hooligans? The Marxists will come after them just as night follows day. Somehow their calculus must tell them that election of Democrats will perpetuate their sweet deal, and the inner city dwellers and small business people be damned.
Not a good look.
I don’t think they realize that they’re on the menu.
“It may or may not but benefiting the poor by providing services for them does not improve income or wealth inequality.”
Actually, there is a body of evidence showing that when people have medical care continuously from an early age they have better financial outcomes.
” Somehow their calculus must tell them that election of Democrats will perpetuate their sweet deal, and the inner city dwellers and small business people be damned.”
Physicians are number three or 4 in both groups so we arent really favoring anyone. Anyway, I am not really sure why it is bad that a class of people that is well off is a primary donor vs having the super wealthy, the CEOs, dominate a party. For sure, they CEOs get great ROI with their donations, and we know that is just the top of the iceberg as they can offer jobs in addition to money. It certainly looks to me as though that is at least as damaging, probably more, compared to people in the mid 6 figures making donations.
Steve
“I don’t think they realize that they’re on the menu.”
Seriously? The politicians surely do. The professionals must be rather unworldly to not similarly know. Its not rocket science.
“Actually, there is a body of evidence showing that when people have medical care continuously from an early age they have better financial outcomes.”
I’m sure there is a body of evidence saying that education, two parent families, physical fitness, non-substance abuse families on and on and on have better financial outcomes. All attempts at social engineering seem to have failed, perhaps even worsening the situation through unintended consequences. It always comes down to conservative principles. And today’s Democrat Party seems hellbent on destroying them.
‘It may or may not but benefiting the poor by providing services for them does not improve income or wealth inequality.’
But it is certainly benefiting the professional government bureaucrat class and their allied NGOs. Which is the real point. A problem managed remains a perpetual problem.
‘“Actually, there is a body of evidence showing that when people have medical care continuously from an early age they have better financial outcomes.’
And who will pay for that continuous medical care? And at what cost? Obviously those who can afford to pay it will not be given it gratis. Which means they will be made to pay for those who can’t or won’t. Demand will always exceed supply in such a subsidized market. Always. Which means economic triage will occur. Either services will be slashed or provider remuneration will be slashed. Whose ox will be gored? For example, one of the reasons besides Cuomo’s bullheaded stupidity that COVID-19 was so devastating in NYS was because NYS’s reimbursement rates were the lowest in the nation, meaning many hospitals couldn’t afford to stay open, all for the sake of economy. Which means that when they were needed those facilities and beds weren’t there.
In a single provider system, like the British NHS, the provider rations care, limits the technologies and drugs available, and seriously reduces the salaries and compensation of physicians and nurses. The total budget provided to the health care system competes with all other state functions, like education, defense, and infrastructure. On the other hand, medical education is heavily subsidized, so doctors and nurses do not enter practice with large debts. Admission to medical schools is controlled by the state, and the schools must satisfy state goals for diversity.
Many of todays physicians would not be admitted to medical school, and their salaries would be much lower than they are.
The middle class and upper class professionals do not understand that the largest pool of taxable income theirs.
a “Brahmin†class of cultural and information workers
Substitute “loyal communist party members “.
People who hold the correct opinions, and are rewarded for their conformity much more than education could ever bring.
“And who will pay for that continuous medical care? And at what cost?”
The rest of the first world does it. Not that big of a deal if we want to do it. Think of it like tax cuts. It will pay for itself.
“I’m sure there is a body of evidence saying that education, two parent families, physical fitness, non-substance abuse families on and on and on have better financial outcomes. All attempts at social engineering ”
Paying for medical care is social engineering? Thats a new one.
Steve
Paying for it is easy if you cut the wages of the highest paid health care workers. That’s what the systems Steve is advocating do.
“Paying for it is easy if you cut the wages of the highest paid health care workers. ”
Couldn’t pass up the cheap shot? Doc salaries make up about 8% of total spending. Eliminate them and our spending is still way over the EU average. Put them at EU norms and you decrease our spending by about 3%. Drug company and device maker CEOs make tons of money but there arent enough to make up the difference.
As i have always said, addressing physician salaries, and those of others, needs to be part of the solution but there is a lot more to it.
” For example, one of the reasons besides Cuomo’s bullheaded stupidity”
Yawn, right wing talking point (blathering point actually). Still haven’t seen good evidence to support this. Also, I had dinner with one of the new critical care docs last night. He trained last year at one of NYC’s best ICU programs, maybe the best. I asked him about that claim. He said they didnt send anyone out if theythougdht they were still infectious. Granted, just one hospital, and one of the best funded in the city.
Steve
Physicians aren’t the only ones in health care making high salaries. That number includes hospital administrators, some technicians, people working in the pharmaceutical industry, medical device manufacturing, people in medical education, and so on. Basically, there are too many people earning too much money, as the former head of the Mayo Clinic put it. The breadth and depth of bureaucracies in the health care system is a major component.
Other components are waste and fraud. I don’t think anyone doubts that the amount of that in Medicare claims is vast.
On another subject I’m not much given to repeating “right wing talking points” blindly but I do pay attention to facts. That the mortality rates, particularly the mortality rates among those not black, Native American, or Hispanic, in New York and New Jersey are far above those anywhere else in the country (including Illinois) are facts. I guess factors would include population density, overcrowding, use of public transportation but it seems incredible to me that public policy has nothing to do with any of those things or the mortality rates. Maybe people in those places are just less healthy or older than those elsewhere. But it seems to me that mistakes must have been made. No?
†For example, one of the reasons besides Cuomo’s bullheaded stupidityâ€
Yawn, right wing talking point (blathering point actually). Still haven’t seen good evidence to support this.
Wow. Instant disqualification for serious commenter.
Dave- At least you are thinking, unlike the conservatives above who can only regurgitate what they have been told. So, does it really make sense that since that entire area had higher death rates that it is all because Cuomo did something in NYC? Nope. There actually are some pretty good studies coming out of that area and we have identified some reasons why death rates were higher for old people.
In NYC they rely a lot more upon agency workers to cover nursing home needs. The more nursing homes that these workers attended the more likely Covid was to spread. But, I think the biggest reason was they they got hit first. It was much further spread than realized before they responded. (No testing remember.) The death rates for the first couple of months were 30%-50% higher than they are now. We figured out that steroids work, anticoagulants help, proning helps.
Did we make mistakes? I am sure some were made, but looking at treatment as a whole, I think that we mostly didnt know what to do at first. People honestly thought that high flow oxygen would not help that much an due a big risk for staff. It turned out not to be a big risk and we found out that it helped a lot. No one knew that if you did prolonged pruning that it would help as much as it did.
Another mistake, if you want to call it that is that hospitals arent set up to work together. They are competitors. They fight pretty hard for market share. So while the prestigious academic center where my new hire worked was not sending infectious patients back to nursing homes, I dont know for sure what was going on with the financially struggling hospitals. If they needed help it would have been hard to give it to them and it would have been hard to move their patients. Even under non-emergent conditions it is difficult for me to get information from our competing hospital 15 miles away. It is much easier to just redo tests and studies. Transferring very sick pts would be hard between two hospital not in the same network on short notice.
Steve