In a nod to labor unions, President Joe Biden is moving to boost wages for construction workers on projects paid for with federal funding, a step that would appeal to a key constituency ahead of next year’s presidential election and potentially shrink the pay gap between northern and southern states.
The members of those same labor unions will “reward” Biden by voting for Trump. The number of workers in the trades who are blind MAGAts is astonishing.
This move will not change that.
And it doesn’t help that Democrats will do nothing to sell this news to these people either. As always Democrats act like their accomplishments are like the 7 herbs and spices in the KFC recipe or the special formula for Coke… well hidden so no one finds out about it.
Ok, but it’s still a good thing, right?
Yes, but ADVERTISE it. Sell your accomplishments because lord knows, no one else will. The news media has been actively attacking stuff that Biden has done while giving Trump one free-pass after another. The news media is not on our side. So if they won’t celebrate Democratic wins, Democrats need to, and turn it into a big deal.
IBEW Local 26 member here. Journeyman Electrical Foreman.
Most states with strong union participation are blue states. Many red states are against unions.
I get where you are coming from, but especially considering construction workers are 3% of the workforce in America, one can’t expect my idiot coworkers to have much of an impact.
Also, Biden or Trump, I don’t care. I don’t trust any of these rich people in politics. They are all crooks, IMHO.
One party is banning books…
The other thinks it’s important to get along with the book burners. They think the book burners are decent people who are just misguided on a few issues. They act like civil debate will solve all problems.
Source: Totally didn’t just pull this out of my ass to construct a shitty strawman.
You’re speaking of the same group.
The “other” doesn’t want to deal with book burners, and wants them to stop.
Which makes them just as bad… 🙄
Don’t discount yourself or your coworkers - shifting the votes of 3% of Americans could have changed the election results of almost every presidential election since 1992 if they went from the winning candidate to the losing candidate.
The top dogs being crooks sucks, but shouldn’t mean that the only acceptable response is political apathy - not doing anything is functionally equivalent to acceptance of the status quo.
The two party system is the real joke.
Oh, I still vote. I never said that. I just write in my candidates.
Once we have ranked voting, that would work.
Otherwise it’s naive to think that vote does anything to help you or yours.
So in practice you are handing your vote to the GOP and Trump. Congratulations on having been convinced by the “apathetic” narrative into handing power over to the GOP.
Reagan tried to kill the Unions. After boasting about being head of Screen Actors Guild.
There’s a difference.
They aren’t all the same.
You should probably care regardless.
Write-ins, amigo.
Big difference with Trump is that a win in 2024 will be the end of democracy in USA.
I’m not being dramatic: He’ll pardon himself for everything (as already established) and then use stacked supreme court / police / military / mob rule to prevent himself being removed again.
Only one of those two people said that parts of the Constitution should be terminated and it wasn’t Biden. I’d say you should care about that, but your mileage may vary.
deleted by creator
The Left loves to pretend that they are so media savvy. That they know all the trends and how to navigate the social media wilderness and what is happening out there. Clearly they don’t or else they should leverage that supposed knowledge to market their ideas to the entire nation.
In short, what should Democrats be doing? The exact OPPOSITE of what they are doing now.
Actually celebrate their wins. I know part of why they don’t is pure cluelessness - they legitimately think that average Joes will find out about these programs on their own. They don’t. Average voters have no idea of what happens in Washington.
Part of it is because Democrats are meek. God forbid they ever go on the offensive and get the media’s attention on topics.
Lastly, part of it is typical “liberal guilt”. The incredibly annoying attitude that some have that god forbid we celebrate anything good, because there might be some one else who isn’t doing so well. It brings down everyone’s mood and makes it so that Democrats are always looking to the bad side of even positive news. Biden tomorrow could announce that nuclear fussion is viable and the country will have free energy, and there will be some on the Left who will complain that fission might negatively impact the northern tree bullfrog or some other meaningless bullshit like that.
I agree but don’t blame dems that they can’t penetrate the propaganda networks and social media spaces owned and dominated by right wingers–they are effectively closed loops at this point.
You’ll see a lot of Republican lawmakers take credit for this as well. I like that Biden is putting up signs for areas where the Infra law passed and made a difference.
They did that with the infrastructure bill. Republicans were literally fighting it tooth-and-nail one day, and the very next day they were back in their home state taking credit for it. And this has been a common practice for them for decades now. And they always never get called-out on it by the media.
Drilling in the Gulf in an area the size of Italy was also in the infrastructure bill. Oil is killing our environment and this fuck stick ramps it up
Did you expect different? Biden ran as an centrist establishment candidate and he’s been exactly that. Anyway, in general, trashing the environment is something both parties agree on but it’s more acceptable for Dems to do. They get to claim “we had to do this but I promise we’re gonna incrementally slow it down, next year…”
Are we going to just sit there and pretend that we don’t need oil? What are you typing on right now? What are you reading this message on? What are 1/2 your clothes and most of the appliances around your house made of? You think anything will move without lubrication?
Rainbows and unicorn farts only go so far. At some point reality kicks in and we realize we need plastic and lubricants and gasoline and diesel and jet fuel and synthetic rubber and a host of other materials that are all around us.
just wait until reality kicks in and you realize we can’t grow massive amounts of food without a predictable climate, and that we only have a finite amount of oil anyways
It doesn’t matter if it is a popular move. Only that it was the right move.
It really sucks that Democratic policies tend to have a massive impact but take a long time to produce, while conservative policies have an equally huge impact but take no time to destroy everything.
It wasn’t Republicans that sent most of the union manufacturing jobs overseas.
They can’t sell it because voters are smarter than this, ‘most pro union President ever’ busting up union strikes doesn’t pull a strong vote of confidence
So you’re saying CEOs aren’t Republican?
This link says that 70% of CEOs are Republican and CEOs have direct control over a company’s labor force. Maximizing profits for shareholder profit is what CEOs do, and shipping jobs overseas is the easiest, and laziest, ways of doing that.
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2022/08/top-business-execs-more-polarized-than-nation-as-whole/#:~:text=Nearly 70 percent of America’s,Harvard Business School%2C Vyacheslav Fos
Capital isnt loyal to any one party.
More loyal to one. Significantly.
No, but it knows where to buy loyalty the cheapest.
Right? It’s like, no shit capital doesn’t have some ideological tie to one party or another, but it’s pretty moronic to ignore the inverse.
Exactly! Both parties are owned.
@K1nsey6 @Hazdaz
Business Insider disagrees.
https://www.businessinsider.com/what-happened-to-american-jobs-in-the-80s-2017-7?op=1
@girlfreddy @K1nsey6@lemmy.world @Hazdaz
NAFTA, originally drafted under Reagan, and spearheaded by Clinton to get it passed, gave our manufacturing away.
@K1nsey6 @K1nsey6@lemmy.world @Hazdaz
NAFTA was signed by Reagan in 1988.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement
Can you not read your own source?
“All three countries ratified NAFTA in 1993”
@K1nsey6
The first NAFTA between Canada and the US was signed in 1988. The second one, signed in 1993, included Mexico.
The above is also included in the link I gave, or did you just ignore that part?
‘The impetus for a North American free trade zone began with U.S. president Ronald Reagan, who made the idea part of his 1980 presidential campaign. After the signing of the Canada–United States Free Trade Agreement in 1988, the administrations of U.S. president George H. W. Bush, Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari, and Canadian prime minister Brian Mulroney agreed to negotiate what became NAFTA’
The Canada–United States Free Trade Agreement superseded by NAFTA.
@K1nsey6
You are simply saying the same thing over and over again and you’re still wrong. Arguing semantics is silly at best.
The first trade agreement was signed by Reagan and Mulroney. I remember the negotiations happening and was disgusted by how Mulroney simply caved to what Reagan wanted (as many other Canadians were at the time).
The agreement never helped Canada at all. It was only good for the US exports. It didn’t lower costs to us or help Canada.
Blame the CEOs and stockholders for profit before country.