No, it’s not my assumption at all;
Good. However, it was implied when you used the term “mooch of government”.
Hence, your narrative relies on a large number of people simply wanting to remain on the dole, as you put it.
Never said that. I tend to think the best of people, that those who are on the dole wish to get off it. However, the realist in me knows that that cannot be 100% true.
You have still failed to explain the facts. Support for Trump appears to be unrelated to direct economic competition against immigrants, at least among the segment of the population which turned out throughout the Midwest to elect him.
If you’re using the term “appear”, you’re not quoting a fact. You’re discussing a derivation of information.
That’s the point; you are assuming this, when the data doesn’t fit this narrative at all.
I’m not seeing data that confirms anything contrary. The problem is that data cannot tell you what is in somebody’s head.
However, this is all going rather far afield at this point from my original post, which was that economic dysphoria exacerbates cultural dysphoria, sometimes to the extent that the two are intertwined.
Where are we going with this?
The construction worker in Texas may reasonably be said to be concerned about this. But neither the poor nor wealthy of Whoknows, NE or Overthehill, MI are in much danger of competition from immigrants (legal or illegal), who make up less than 10% of the populations of these states, and even less so outside of the big cities.
However, those numbers are plenty to swing an election as close as the one we just had.
Academic, ‘coastal’ culture is gaining power; traditional, ‘heartland’ culture is losing it. So Bay Area whites are not concerned about the situation, despite facing a lot of direct economic competition from (mostly Asian) immigrants; while Michigan whites are concerned, even (especially) wealthier ones, despite not facing nearly as much direct economic competition.
The following states grew the fastest over the mid 2015–2016 period. One can safely assume that it’s because they provide superior economic opportunity. In order:
Utah, Nevada, Idaho, Florida, Washington, Oregon, Colorado, Arizona, Texas
The following states lost population:
West Virginia, Illinois, Vermont, Conneticut, Wyoming, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, New York.
I don’t see a pattern of coastal ascendance there. If you look at the map, there’s a clear bias to the Pac Northwest, noncoastal West and Southeast
Their cultural anxiety is rational and correct because their culture has been under a sustained assault for at least 70 and probably more like 100 years. But it cannot be understood in purely economic terms.
Nobody’s disputing that. My point is simply that to separate the relationship between the two, which can be very strong, is not productive.