Re: Sebby is ugly and below average
 

Which means they tend to make a few more bucks than loads of people making near subsistence wages. So they're the lords of the slagheap.

Cuz call me nuts, but making $100k these days, you can't even afford to send the kids to college?

Re: Sebby is ugly and below average
 

Haven't I called you nuts before? What makes you think anything has changed?

Re: Sebby is ugly and below average
 

Because it's the holidays?

Re: Barcelona
 

Ty said the poorest did not vote for Trump. This is true.

You responded with, "not all Trump voters are affluent" (paraphrase). This is also true and undisputed.

The dispute was over your sloppy characterization of who you think the typical Trump voter is based on an inaccurate understanding of the statistics.

Now you've found another statistic that you don't understand, and have used it to make a categorial assertion. Here's my response: I don't know what "affluent" means in the abstract, but $100k is roughly twice national median income, and fully a third of Trump's support came from people making more than that. Which sounds actually like a lot.

But maybe it's not a lot. We'd need to know something about what percentage of Americans earn more than that. Here's something called bankrate.com (almost three years ago) saying that roughly 20% of households earn more than $100k: https://www.bankrate.com/finance/per...anymore-1.aspx

This from the WSL says $100k is 8th percentile (this is individual, not family): http://graphics.wsj.com/what-percent/

This, from Bloomberg, has an interesting title.

If those numbers are about right (feel free to spend more than 20 seconds Googling), then Trump got disproportionate support from people earning more than $100k.

Re: Pennsylvania: where the men are ugly and all the children are below average
 

It's wrong for a different reason too, something I said yesterday that Sebby seems to have missed. Trump voters tend to well-off relative to where they live, but live in places that are not doing well relative to the nation as a whole. At least part of the sense of grievance comes from the sense of entitlement that comes from having been affluent, relatively, and the sense of threat that comes from feeling like your community's best days are behind it.

Re: Barcelona
 

THIS JUST IN! INCOME IS FAR FROM NORMALLY DISTRIBUTED!

https://www.census.gov/content/censu...9361951239.png

Re: Pennsylvania: where the men are ugly and all the children are below average
 

Many of those areas, of course, have made many choices that have repercussions, such as not investing in education and educational institutions, and many of those people don't have an economic grievance but a social and cultural one. They double down on past poor choices through support for Trump. Some of the sense of grievance isn't about economics, but about the godless hateful "religion" many of them spout and their own racism.

Re: Barcelona
 

Do you think Sebby knows what "normally distributed" means?

Re: Sebby is ugly and below average
 

And even more affluent relative to other people in places where they live, which are poorer than America as a whole.

Re: Barcelona
 

Trump voters are the high end of the struggling classes. This would indicate a more normal distribution with the majority congealing around the median and identical tails going to the poor on one side and Sheldon Adelson on the other.

Re: Pennsylvania: where the men are ugly and all the children are below average
 

You don’t know this. That’s entirely conjecture. It’s a lot more credible and logical to say that the majority of Trump’s $100k+ voters are in or around cities. Cities are where the money is. Your argument, that Trump had lots of voters in the exburbs, and therefore landed his well heeled voters in significant part from the tiny pool of wealthy exburb and rural voters is far less likely scenario than Trump’s $100k+ voters coming from a much bigger pool of $100k+ greedy folks in and around cities.

Re: Barcelona
 

Oh my god, you really don't understand math. If 2/3 of Trump voters earn less than $100K and if it is also true that 2/3 of ALL PEOPLE earn <$100K, then it would be the case that Trump voters as a whole might be just as affluent as everyone else. Or more affluent. You still wouldn't know without more information. Put another way, saying that most Trump voters aren't affluent, alone, tells you nothing about the relative affluence of Trump voters. I know I don't usually argue substance with, but dude, this is just math.

Re: Barcelona
 

100k is not affluent, anywhere. You can’t afford to send a kid to college on that salary, no matter where you live.

Re: Pennsylvania: where the men are ugly and all the children are below average
 

We have an economy right now where there are strong network effects driving good growth. The kinds of jobs that everybody wants are clustered in a small number of metro areas. Look at Amazon, choosing to expand in NYC and DC rather than any one of a number of other places. In the development sense, the rich (areas) get richer and the rest are stuck looking up at them. Fighting this dynamic is super hard. Individual places have done some interesting things, but no one has found a solution that works widely.

Re: Barcelona
 

It can't be that you still do not get this, can it? You're just doing your usual bs, right?