- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmings.world
- us_news@lemmygrad.ml
- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmings.world
- us_news@lemmygrad.ml
Economic concerns and growing disenchantment with both parties is draining support for Trump among Gen Z young men, a key bloc of support during the 2024 election
Male Gen Z voters are breaking with Donald Trump and the Republican party at large, recent polls show, less than a year after this same cohort defied convention and made a surprise shift right, helping Trump win the 2024 election.
Taken with wider polling suggesting Democrats will lead in the midterms, the findings on young men spell serious trouble for the Republican Party in 2026.
Younger Gen Z men, those born between 2002 and 2007, may be even more anti-Trump, according to October research from YouGov and the Young Men’s Research Project, a potential sign that their time living through the social upheavals of the Covid pandemic and not being political aware during the first Trump administration may be shaping their experience.
they don’t want radical. they want jobs and a stabilized cost of living. they want to feel like they have a future.
trump focused on economic issues, and got their votes. if the next democrats can push forward economic reforms that improve the economy… they will get the votes. Kamala absolutely refused to run on any agenda of economic reform and endorse Biden’s inflation economy.
I think it’s a terrible idea to run a sitting vice president as the candidate for the next election.
Since people often want change, they will ask “what will you do different?” And the VP will have to respond “Nothing” otherwise people will ask “Well, why aren’t you doing that now?”
It will be interesting to see how Vance responds to these questions if they decide to run him to take over for Trump.
Fair days wage for a fair days work IS radical in a world where 8 people hold 50% of the world’s wealth
what is a fair wage? 100K a year for bagging groceries? 50K?
That really depends on how much things cost, whether you have a social safety net, etc.
How about: is it more than 1% of what the CEO makes?
the problem with ‘fair wage’ is ‘what things cost’ is subjective measure.
i know people who make half what i make who have more than enough, and people who make 3x what I mean who feel they are struggling because they don’t own a 3 million dollar house.
the objective facts of economics don’t have much weight when it comes to people subjective perception of their ‘needs’. and human psychology tends to adapt to whatever baseline is available. this is why the CEO making 150million doesn’t think they are wealthy, and will tell you how they are underpaid. it’s also established relative to your social peers.
I never felt that I was ‘poor’ my entire life until I went to college and was informed I was poor, because objectively, I was. But since I grew up in a town in the bottom half of the economic ladder I was never exposed to the concept of wealth.
We’re all familiar with the tropes about finding happiness in poverty but “living wage” is an actual thing that can be calculated.
https://livingwage.mit.edu/
In my area, one of the cheaper ones in the nation, you need to make about $22/hr as a single person to cover food/rent/utilities/insurance/etc.
If you want to debate the merits of “bagging groceries” as a long term job or how much one needs to have to be happy that’s a different discussion but it’s pretty clear what people need to be paid in order to survive.
my local city subreddit has that calculator posted on like a monthly basis. and 90% of the responses are how the basic living wage it cites is a poverty wage. of course, it’s not.
people aren’t rational. someone making 22/hr may objectively be able to meet basic needs, but it doesn’t mean they are living ‘well’. as well is entirely subjective to one’s perceived needs. and frankly, as someone who lives below my means for decades in order to establish financial stability… I dont’ really meet many people who share my attitude outside of the FIRE types. My perception of ‘need’ is far less than the vast majority of my peers. For example I don’t need luxury products to feel my life is ‘good’. many of my peers debt-spend rather than living without them and their version of a ‘living wage’ is a top 1-2% income.
it also doesn’t account for other factors, like family wealth. 22/hr is a much different wage to someone who has 50K in student loan debt, than to someone who has a 500K trust fund.
This was always true. I want someone who works for the working man and woman. I don’t care if we become socialist, stay in capitalism, what the fuck ever other choice: we as people need to feel taken care of. Any system that ignores its people is doomed.
Just as important is explaining to people why some choices need to be made that we may not agree with. Raising the gas tax? I’m ok with it, because I already know it’s how we pay for our roads. But what about my less aware neighbor? If they simply see the rate jump, and don’t know why, it leaves the door wide open for a conspiracy schmuck to step in with a ragebait explanation.
Yeah, but you’re being reasonable. Most human beings aren’t reasonable. They are not thoughtful or pragmatic. Only a small percentage of people are well-mannered and educated enough to even understand the basics of macroeconomics and public policy that often drives it.
They are driven by raw emotion that is often entirely disproportionate to the thing it’s responding to. Like your example of someone flying into a rage over a minor tax increase. And now in 2025+, these people think they are all geniuses due to a steady diet of social media that constantly reinforces their ignorant and rage. And they block and assault anyone who dares try to dispute their rage and ignorance.
I was in thread about credit ratings yesterday and all the smart factually accurate commentary was down-voted, and all the ragebaiting ignorance conspiracy nonsense was heavily upvoted.
Sure, but at least reminding people of why at the time leadership announces a change removes a lot of ambiguity.
Definitely doesn’t solve the problem by itself, but it’s not much work to include… Presuming the law/change in question was written with a real reason in mind.
Wish the system could ignore us when it comes to the bipartisan war on drugs.
I think GenZ might just be stupid if they thought Trump had a more economic reform agenda than Harris. But yeah blame Harris for that too.
trump ran on economic issues. they weren’t stupid. they listened to what he said. they just didn’t think he was lying.
‘no tax on tips’ was resonated with a lot of young service workers. he kept hammering home how he’d stop inflation, etc.
Fair enough. You are right that “ran on” and actual policy are two different things. Pretty clear that Harris fumbled her economic messaging when it comes to what GenZ were wanting to hear I guess.
Yes, sadly a lot of folks can’t grasp that distinction and get really upset about it.
What was really interest to me was listening to post polling interviews with voters on election day. They were very consistent in why they voted for Trump. Young and old alike.
It find the whole thing just… sad because it’s so obvious but the democrats can’t seem to figure it out. Obama and Clinton won on the same issues, economics. H Clinton’s campaign was equally economically tone-deaf as Kamala. So was Kerry in '04.