Do rich people who support economic leftist policies go against their self interest?

[wimp]

See title

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

Yes, and that's a good thing.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Yes, which is why milquetoast liberals who whine about #populist #WWC people "voting against their own self-interest " and then turn around and welcome the bankers-and-Beyoncé vote with open arms are full of sh**t.

[Santander]

No, because sometimes, the masses need to be placated. The alternative is revolution.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Of course they do. People in general don’t vote based on their self-interest. They vote based on what they think is best for the country.

[Santander]

Of course they do. People in general don’t vote based on their self-interest. They vote based on what they think is best for the country.

L O f**king L

[parochial boy]

It's a pay off at the end of the day, if someone's moral values are such that a more egalitarian distribution of wealth is more valuable to them than maintaining their position of priviledge, is that really voting against their interests, as such?

There is obviously a crowd of people who cosplay because they think taking on a left wing affection makes them look good, but it is generally quite quick and easy to tell when someone genuinely values economic egalitarianism.

In any case, seeing as mean wealth/income is higher than median wealth/income, the number of people voting "against" their interests by supporting redistribution is, statistically speaking, a minority.

[Red Velvet]

Kinda, but it depend on who you’re talking about when referring to the rich. Is it the top 1%? 10%? Or 20%?

For the 1% yeah but not necessarily for the others, who may have more stuff in common with people in the bottom 80% than with the 1% richest.

[Diabolical Materialism]

Of course they do. People in general don’t vote based on their self-interest. They vote based on what they think is best for the country.

Bro what are you talking about. How many people do you talk to.

[PSOL]

Those who support leftist policies are most likely those whose lives were made worse by the very same institutions others in their position benefit from. Using an example, Freddy Engels was shaped by the reaction to harsh rules on proper “living” as a sociable bohemian—the cool hipster of his time. He partied and seemed out to widen his social reach, but the German Middle Class shunned such values in place of remaining above the fray and being killjoys.

Then there’s the extreme variation of this. Lenin was, most probably, entirely a black sheep. He was aSexual (probably), irreligious, and preferred living the life of an ascetic intellectual. Thus, conforming to the work of a landlord, and the needs both in terms of work and emotion such a life would entail to be sustainable. Add in the fact that his brother’s life was unjustly taken for fighting a barbaric monarchy as an actual liberal partisan—yeah.

Going that far to be revolutionary is the exception, not the norm, and I’d say that the above members of the gentry and bourgeoisie were influenced by their social group to become more revolutionary by meeting and engrossing themselves in working culture—I’m of course talking about math whizzes Marx and Bukharin.

Now, a significant amount of champagne socialists in general never reach this stage to drop the elitism of deformed social democracy, as they don’t really socialize among the working people that much, and mainly live in an enclosed bubble. These people are usually the smug urbanites sucking up and down to maximize their social status. People like Destiny-ripoff Vaush and Jacobin Editor Bhaskar Sunkara, along with a significant amount of people on Atlas, fit in this bubble. These are the left-partisans of the Democratic Party and subversive liberal forces working to soften and at times break the working class demands and direct action. This is the “face” of the American Left.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yes, and that's a good thing.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Of course they do. People in general don’t vote based on their self-interest. They vote based on what they think is best for the country.

     In an ideal world, yes. In practice, most people just support whoever promises them more free stuff.

[John Dule]

No, it's impossible to perform a rational action that is against your own self-interest.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Voting against your self-interest has always been a dumb line of interpretation. It's incredibly narrowly defined and it presumes everyone has the same priorities. People decide what their own self interest/personal priorities/whateverthef##k is and vote accordingly.

Expecting people to universally define their self interest as welfare received from government minus taxes payed to government and vote accordingly is just absurd.

[Never Made it to Graceland]

Not necessarily. Economically leftist policies have proven to make better societies. Higher wages, lower debt, cheaper healthcare = more money to be spent in economy.  And it's not like Bezos' life is any better with 100 billion vs. 1 billion. He busts unions and refuses to pay his employees the value of their production because he is a psychopath, not because it makes economic sense.

[DC Al Fine]

Yes, which is why milquetoast liberals who whine about #populist #WWC people "voting against their own self-interest " and then turn around and welcome the bankers-and-Beyoncé vote with open arms are full of sh**t.

This, but with the caveat that due to regulatory capture and and parties advocating for particular industries, there are frequent exceptions.

The Associate Dean of Taking Funds Away From Teaching, making $200k, is absolutely voting their economic interest when they vote Democrat.

[RINO Tom]

^ On that basic note, my answer was going to be that it depends heavily on these two things:

1) What industry these people work in

2) What is considered "rich" for the purposes of this exercise

Some people on Atlas talk about incomes of $100k or $200k for a family as rich simply because, presumably, they or their families make a lot less ... but that's not really "rich."  Not in the way that society's rhetoric talks about "the rich."  That's an upper-middle class lifestyle (with adjustments for COL and geography, of course), regardless of what it is statistically.

As you said, someone in the field of higher education who makes "a lot of money" absolutely benefits from an increased welfare state and more government intervention into the economy.  Additionally, someone who makes "a lot of money" but works a basic salaried job, lives in a major city's urban core, uses public transportation and spends a majority of his or her life benefiting from the massive infrastructure costs of a major city absolutely benefits from Democratic economic policies, as well, even IF his or her taxes go up.

On a very basic level, yes - the GOP's policies are generally better for "rich people."  However, they are only significantly better for those people to the extent that it will override their cultural or social views when other conditions are met, such as living in a more suburban/exurban/rural area, working in an industry that is more traditionally conservative like finance or extraction and, of course, anyone who owns his or her own business and deals with red tape.

[Asta]

It depends on what kind of "rich" you are.

If you are a small business owner taking home 250k a year, then you may have strong incentive to vote for a Republican for lower minimum wage policies and EITC.

If I was a billionaire whose primary compensation was stock-based, then my incentive to vote for Republican policies is not as strong as one thinks. It may be better to vote for regulatory leftist policies in order to remove competition arising from deregulated market. This is likely the reason why people like Warren Buffett supports Obama and Clinton.

They just have a different philosophy as to what they believe are in their best interest.

[Suburbia]

It depends on what kind of "rich" you are.

If you are a small business owner taking home 250k a year, then you may have strong incentive to vote for a Republican for lower minimum wage policies and EITC.

If I was a billionaire whose primary compensation was stock-based, then my incentive to vote for Republican policies is not as strong as one thinks. It may be better to vote for regulatory leftist policies in order to remove competition arising from deregulated market. This is likely the reason why people like Warren Buffett supports Obama and Clinton.

They just have a different philosophy as to what they believe are in their best interest.

I guess LeBron James as well. Why would a rich Black man care about the Black community or lower and moderate income people when you are making Millions?

I see why Michael Jordan said in the 1990s "Republicans wear sneakers too"

MJ didn't care for social issues, he was focused on BASKETBALL. He won 6 rings from 1991 to 1998, the last dusk of the 20th century that paved the way for Iverson, Kobe, Shaq, Harden, LeBron, etc.

“I wasn’t a politician. I was playing my sport. You know, I was focused on my craft. Was that selfish? Probably. But you know that was my energy. That’s where my energy was.”

LeBron doesn't really have to advocate for these programs, and the social activism and the leftwing economic programs, but he does because he feels that it benefits his community--the Black community, although he is rich.

He doesn't want to be seen as a Black Uncle Tom like Jordan and OJ--Rich Black men who hangout and associate with white people

"The Mount Rushmore of black athletes has always been connected to the struggle of black people. Jesse Owens, Jack Johnson, Willie O’Ree, Jackie Robinson, Muhammad Ali, Bill Russell, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Jim Brown, Tommie Smith and John Carlos all doubled down on their activist endeavours once they became famous. They didn’t divorce themselves from it.

In some way, these athletes remained connected to their old communities because they were still struggling, whether it was financially or racially. They were successful stars, but they were in no way treated equally in their everyday lives or in their profession.

Then the 1990s came along and the money in professional sports exploded. The athletes could take care of themselves and their families with generational wealth, much of which came to them from off-the-court ventures.

It’s not as if other top black athletes at the time in other sports like Bo Jackson or Ken Griffey Jr. were outwardly political. Rather, they were following the blueprint laid out by Jordan.

Former U.S. President Barack Obama articulated this conundrum in “The Last Dance.”

“Any African American that sees significant success has an added burden. America is very quick to embrace a Jordan, an Oprah, a Barack Obama, so long as it’s understood you don’t get too controversial around broader issues of social justice.”

Which is why Jordan is in between a rock and a hard place. He likely doesn’t become Michael Jordan as we know him if he was rebelling against the system and forcing conversations about systemic racism."

https://www.sportsnet.ca/basketball/nba/jordan-cant-escape-legacy-republicans-buy-sneakers-quote/

[Suburbia]

Of course they do. People in general don’t vote based on their self-interest. They vote based on what they think is best for the country.

So why does Shakira, Oprah, Magic Johnson, Beyoncé, LeBron, Jennifer Lopez and all these rich minorities around the world vote for leftwing parties?

[PSOL]

Of course they do. People in general don’t vote based on their self-interest. They vote based on what they think is best for the country.

So why does Shakira, Oprah, Magic Johnson, Beyoncé, LeBron, Jennifer Lopez and all these rich minorities around the world vote for leftwing parties?

The Republican Party’s membership are hostile to their success and careers, or are hostile to themselves personally. The Republican Party’s moral policies if empowered might censor media to limit the amount of skin they show, which could jeopardize some of the sex factor in music videos. These celebrities are also much more integrated in the new Economy and finance capital than the landed gentry-wannabes and buzzkills in the other party.

Also most of the celebrities you listed are nonwhite and...you know especially well where your party stands for.

[Suburbia]

Of course they do. People in general don’t vote based on their self-interest. They vote based on what they think is best for the country.

So why does Shakira, Oprah, Magic Johnson, Beyoncé, LeBron, Jennifer Lopez and all these rich minorities around the world vote for leftwing parties?

The Republican Party’s membership are hostile to their success and careers, or are hostile to themselves personally. The Republican Party’s moral policies if empowered might censor media to limit the amount of skin they show, which could jeopardize some of the sex factor in music videos. These celebrities are also much more integrated in the new Economy and finance capital than the landed gentry-wannabes and buzzkills in the other party.

Also most of the celebrities you listed are nonwhite and...you know especially well where your party stands for.

Not my party, I am an Independent.

Then why does Marie Osmond, John Elway, Roger Clemens, Trump and Giuliani view the Democratic Party as a threat and vote Republican?

[Vosem]

Everyone supporting economic leftist policies is going against their self-interest. Rich people are not unique in this.

[Big Abraham]

Well, OP never defined "economic leftist policies" or the threshold for "rich." Do said economic policies refer to taxing the wealthiest individuals at a higher marginal tax rate, or does it involve forced redistribution/collectivism? Is "rich" somebody who makes over 80k a year (which already places you in the top 10-15% globally), or is it someone who has accumulated a large amount of capital through proprietorship of investment banking?

If the latter in both cases, then yes (and as our resident Cattocomunista said - a good thing). If the former in both cases, I don't really see how. A person with a middle-class income (by American standards) who wants Amazon to pay more in taxes isn't really very daring. Definition problems like these are exactly why social class should be defined in relation to the means of production, rather than what your salary or net worth is.

[Benjamin Frank]

No.  

1.This is one interpretation of what Joe Biden meant when he allegedly said to wealthy people "Nothing would fundamentally change."

The view that wealthy people have to lose in order for poor people to win (do better) is based on 'zero sum game' thinking.  All the people here who have argued that should be concerned they're no smarter than Donald Trump.

To be sure, it is also true that there is some aspects where it is a zero sum game.

The modern economy is interconnected.  Everybody is both a potential competitor - directly or indirectly - and a potential partner at the same time.

So, the better somebody else does, while it has the potential to harm your position, it also has the potential to help your position.  In the aggregate, economic growth where everybody improves their real wealth and knowledge and education has been shown to benefit society as a whole, and most everybody in it.

So, one explanation for Biden's comment is that he is accurate based on neo classical economists: making those worse off better will end up either helping you, or at worse, not hurting you.

2.There are also market failures.  The main one here is similar to 'the tragedy of the commons.'  I should be able to remember the term, but it's idea of when something is good for one person to do something, it might be bad when everybody does it.  Overfishing is the classically cited example of that (though that is an example of tragedy of the commons.)

The clearest example of this, I think, occurred with free trade.  It is in every wealthy corporate executives best interest to see that the gains from trade mostly accrued to them.  However, when virtually every executive in every company that benefited from free trade did the same thing, it all ended up hurting the cause of free trade by leading millions of voters to turn against it.

Some intelligent wealthy people realize that an economic leftist government is needed to put a check on their worst individual impulses.

3.Regulations don't all effect every company the same way.  It is true, as has been pointed out here, that established business can benefit from regulations because they increase barriers to entry for potential competitors, however, that is only the cynical way to look at why some businesses support regulations.  

It is also the case that unregulated businesses create negative externalities that place costs on other businesses.  One example is that when a 'new economy' firm wants to recruit high skilled foreign workers, they don't want to have to deal with their recruitment being hampered due to a lot of pollution from smoke stacks.