this post was submitted on 30 Dec 2025
568 points (98.1% liked)

politics

26905 readers
2070 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world -2 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] nomy@lemmy.zip 3 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world 1 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

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.