Reddit mentions: The best demography books

Autogenerated.

Trump, GOP, Democrats and all things politics with political commentator Evan Siegfried. AMA!

My name is Evan Siegfried a GOP strategist and political commentator. I'm a regular on Fox News and MSNBC, as well as the occasional CNN appearance. My columns have appeared in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and Daily Beast. My book, GOP GPS, came out to great reviews last year. I live in New York City with my dog, Rowdy, who's even done some dog modeling on the side.

Yell at me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/evansiegfried

Check out my book here: https://www.amazon.com/GOP-GPS-Millennials-Republican-Survive/dp/1510717323/

Proof

-----------------------------------------------------------

thefuckmobile :

What is the chance Trump wins reelection? Today's Gallup poll has his approval

at 36/60. HuffPollster has the average at 39/56. Bush 41 was in the 30s in

November 1992. Is it more likely Trump becomes the next Jimmy Carter or the

next Bush 41?

evansiegfried :

A couple other people have asked similar questions, so I will say this: Trump

does stand a chance, but the odds can't be quantified right now given how

major factors that influence the vote are not known (who Trump is running

against, the economy, etc.).

-----------------------------------------------------------


Panoptes-IS :



Hi Evan, What is your thought on right-leaning personalities calling news

stations like CNN, WaPo, NYT etc. "fake news"? Would you agree the most most

vocal of these members accurately represent Republican voters, and if not, what

are your thoughts on Conservative rhetoric being as far right as it is today?

Thank you for taking the time to do this

evansiegfried :

Stop calling it fake news. It is not helpful in the long term. We need to win

arguments using facts, not feelings or what we wish the facts to be. It

upsets me each and every time that people call something they don't like fake

news. This is not to deny that some news is inaccurate for one reason or

other, but to label all things you do not like "fake news" is to deny

reality.

-----------------------------------------------------------


regal1989 :



Do you think it's possible the Senate could vote for impeachment if Democrats

took the house in 2018?

evansiegfried :

I am not sure that even House Democrats are there at this point. Only a few

have called for impeachment. A move toward it could backfire and play to

Trump's benefit in 2020 if they do not have a case that Republicans would

also back. If they do not, Trump would paint it as a political move and use

it to fire up his base/say the status quo is using every trick in the book to

prevent change.

-----------------------------------------------------------


Eric-SD :



Hi Evan, A very libertarian/conservative friend of mine believes a universal

basic income is both unavoidable in the future, and supports it as being a

"small government" policy. His argument is that it is the opposite of the

government picking "winners and losers", and instead levels the playing field

so everyone is competing from a common starting line, eliminating a lot of

necessity for government intervention. What are your thoughts on this

viewpoint?

evansiegfried :

I am not a fan of Universal Basic Income. The cost of UBI would be

astronomical and also have negative economic impacts. It would decrease

productivity, increase cost of living through rapid inflation, as well as is

the equivalent of a government-provided participation trophy.

-----------------------------------------------------------


lovely_sombrero :



Will/should the DNC take away unanimous consent to prevent the vote on senate

healthcare bill?

evansiegfried :

No. There are moderate GOP senators who are already on the fence and some key

details that are being rumored in the Senate version of the AHCA are ones

that the House would never go for. If this bill passes the Senate, it likely

will die in reconciliation.

-----------------------------------------------------------


Chodamaster :



Is there any disconnect between what we are seeing in the spotlight, Republican

senators and reps saying the investigation is a witch Hunt, and what the base

and rank and file Republican s believe? And what are your thoughts on Trump's

little to no reaction on the hacking of state voting rosters?

evansiegfried :

What is being said in public by elected Republicans is very different than

what is said in private (same with Democrats). Among the base, it is viewed

much more as a witch hunt.

-----------------------------------------------------------


Kunundrum85 :



Why do some GOP senators, McCain comes to mind, seem to be acknowledging the

Russian interference but don't seem to want to pursue it? How much is Party

being placed above Country?

evansiegfried :

That is an inaccurate statement. We know that Russia interfered in the

election and it is deadly serious. 17 intelligence agencies have confirmed

this. Last night, the Senate reached a deal to keep Obama's Russia sanctions

in place and that they would need to authorize Trump to remove them. We are

still waiting on the full investigation by Director Mueller and will take

appropriate action. The key now is preventing it from happening in the

future.

-----------------------------------------------------------


Qu1nlan :



Does Rowdy know any dog sports or cool tricks? Show us!

evansiegfried :

He knows how to ring for elevators, loves to play frisbee and does a fun

trick where he puts his paw on his "best friend." Frisbee-

https://www.instagram.com/p/BFjwUlUmvRn/?taken-by=evansiegfried&hl=en

Attending a gin tasting- https://www.instagram.com/p/BVK8zZulCnZ/ Best

friend trick- https://www.instagram.com/p/BTABQicj4NN/

-----------------------------------------------------------

IamAbot_v01. Alpha version. Under care of /u/oppon.
Comment 1 of 7
Updated at 2017-06-14 13:23:23.220259

This is the final update to this thread

A) No one said tax rich people enough to make them poor. This is a ridiculous strawman that people who hate taxes bring up all the time.

B) High taxes really don't make people leave, at least not most rich people. Sure you can find a few examples of the mega-rich leaving because they're mega-rich, but most people do not want to do this. Furthermore, America enjoys a considerable advantage in this respect, allowing them space to raise taxes because.... Every other OECD country (all the nice places to live, basically) has higher taxes. Rich people really don't like moving that much, for reasons.

C) If people got rich for only adding value, then all labourers would be rich because by modifying a commodity, they do in fact add value. Getting Rich is more a confluence of factors, only one of which (and arguably not even the largest) is labour. Luck, previous Capital, place and social position of birth, play a role, and especially in the case of starting Capital, a lot more.

D) This is true. Rich people do pay more, kind of because they have all the money in the first place. If this were to be rectified (Rich people paying less) the disappearance of government social services would probably inspire a violent revolution.

E) Not a big help to the people who are doing without now, but I guess its great that even Rich families, eventually, are leveled with everyone else. Broad social trends that stretch over generations might be useful for research and historical purposes but they are not very comforting to people who must suffer because of imbalances; no one wants to be told that their lot must be crap because, oh well, the system will balance out in time. Who knows, maybe your grandkid's kid will be a millionare.

The idea the rich are rich because they're amazing (variety of reasons) and the poor are poor for an inverse reflection is crap, and used to justify punishing the poor further and rewarding people who have already claimed the lion's share of the rewards.

The reason it's always Texas has more to do with your size than your politics. Well, it's partly your politics. However, the liberals do the same thing with California. California and Texas are the largest buyers of text books in the country. No text book company wants to produce a Texas version, California version and Rest of America version.

So California and Texas set their requirements very stringently in order to buy text books because they know what they put in their textbooks will be the guide for the rest of the nation. They also allocate much more funding to make sure they're loyal customers in return for getting their ideology in text books.

The thing is, California is joke when it comes to managing money. Their liberal state government just wastes and wastes money. Texas is more organized and sees much more success because they're dedicated.

That's really the lynch pin of GOP success. They're much more organized because they have only one ideology. They cater to wealthy whites. To a certain extent it's wealthy white males.

The liberals get all the overflow. A white gay couple will have a much different agenda than a black heterosexual woman. Although, some gays are starting to vote for the GOP. This is both due to the fact that parts of the Republican party (mostly young) are accepting of marriage equality and partly because there are many gay couples now in their thirties and forties without children who have an interest in maintaining the status quo.

If you're homosexual and already got the right to marry why wouldn't you start voting for the GOP? You're less likely to have children. You both likely work. Why would you want higher taxes? Why would you want to care about abortion? Granted, it's far from a pronounced trend. However, the GOP is winning over hispanics and homosexuals a lot faster than they're winning over blacks or women. The Hispanic thing is mostly because many of them come from strong Christian backgrounds. So they agree with the GOP when they say Christianity should be part of American life.

This stuff is really interesting. At least to me, but not so much at cocktail parties.

Further reading:

America's New Swing Region: Changing Politics and Demographics in the Mountain West


http://www.amazon.com/Americas-New-Swing-Region-Demographics/dp/0815722869

Red, Blue, and Purple America: The Future of Election Demographics

http://www.amazon.com/Red-Blue-Purple-America-Demographics/dp/0815783159/ref=pd_sim_b_2?ie=UTF8&refRID=115CNAB7JTFY76W1ZE9Y

You are certainly welcome to believe anything you'd like, but if you insist on holding pejorative views of others, don't be shocked when they don't react positively.

In terms of you claiming that the Democratic party leadership not reflecting the values of the Democratic electorate - you are correct. Democratic leaders are considerably more liberal and progressive than the general public at large. Again, the whole thing that started this conversation we're having is me pointing out the election results, which clearly shows this issue.

I clearly understand how you get to that condition. Thanks to The Big Sort, lefties in big emerald blue cities almost can't help but fall into group-think. While suburban and rural Democratic activists are stuck trying to explain to you that America isn't all a bunch of frustrated socialists.

In terms of Donald Trump, please understand that there is a huge white temper tantrum going on, as the 1950s economy, where if you were American, white, and male, you could get a job more or less straight out of highschool, even if you learned nothing there. The US hasn't fallen behind in the market, so much as the rest of the world has caught up, and succeeding if you're the "right" kind of person, isn't so easy anymore. Hence the tantrum.

Most of this tantrum exhibits itself as blatant white racism and nativism, but there is the leftist version of this as well. Scratch the surface of a so-called "millennial" supposedly angry at "capitalism", you find they're no more in favor of raising taxes on the rich than others. Measure 97 in particular, lost in Oregon because the public got convinced by the "rich plutocrats give people jobs and low prices as a gift - not because that's what the market will bear - so tax increases on them will all be passed on to you" canard. It's depressing.

Quite literally, in 150 yeas, no non-incumbent Democratic party candidate has ever followed a Democratic President. This is not due to "incompetence", it's due to the fact that 25% of the public always just votes against the president's party no matter what. It is generally true for Republicans as well, with the exception of Reagan, who successfully convinced the public to shift dramatically to the right.

The voters, mind you. Not the leadership.

No. Democrats are not socialists. We worship neither at the altar of "free markets" nor "government everything". Both concentrate power in the hands of a few, which leads inevitably to authoritarianism. We happen to be pulling in the same direction as socialists - advocating for more government control of completely out of control crony-capitalism and plutocracy that the GOP espouses. But we also see the lessons of socialist corrupt fascism, and don't want that either.

these topics are interesting, and there are a lot of related subjects which would be beneficial to learn. I hope it's correct to assume you're in America.

i haven't actually read these linked books, just doing a little search for you because I miss my days studying politics

The American Political Party System: Continuity and Change Over Ten Presidential Elections

The Cash Nexus: Money and Power in the Modern World, 1700-2000

Political Scandal: Power and Visability in the Media Age

Mass Media and American Politics

Demographic Gaps in American Political Behavior

Religion and Politics in the United States

Words Like Loaded Pistols: Rhetoric from Aristotle to Obama

Soviet Society in the Era of Late Socialism, 1964-1985

How Russia Really Works: The Informal Practices That Shaped Post-Soviet Politics and Business (Culture and Society after Socialism)

The Party: The Secret World of China’s Communist Rulers

I think using the political scandals books would be really important. Because let's face it, yes politicians do lie but they don't always get off the hook. I think the book on rhetoric would also be super interesting. Learning about soviet / chinese society is interesting because they have it worse than us in terms of lying politicians (I'm a good patriot)

You should try and use historical-overview type texts for the bulk of citation. If you are quoting opinionated pieces, you can't just present their opinion as fact. You should reference the topic using the neutral sources as well.

By the way, an incredibly useful tool for constructing this kind of reading list is looking at the bibliographies of other books.

Your position is trivially true on a long enough time scale. As long as the Earth remains a basically closed source of resources and we remain exclusively on Earth, any waste means eventual depletion of resources. However, on human scales this is not necessarily true.

In general Malthusian Catastrophe scenarios fail to adequately take into account human ingenuity. The greater the population the greater the number of people who can contribute to the solution.

Take a look at the first and second Simon-Ehrlich wagers. Paul Ehrlich famously wrote The Population Bomb and believed that the growing population was going to quickly result in all kinds of resource scarcity. Julian Simon, on the other hand, believed that the greater available man power and innovation would counteract that scarcity for the foreseeable future. Simon won the first bet and declined the second on the grounds that the proposed measures were too specific and limiting. For instance, the scarcity of rice might not matter much if rice eating countries switch to flour.

And Simon appears to have been correct. While Ehrlich's specific predictions in the second wager mostly were correct, looking at most of them with a broader viewpoint shows that they measure something that in general has improved in the world, rather than gotten worse, except those related directly to global warming. For example, while per capita cropland and soil have decreased, yields have increased so per capita available calories has increased. Ocean harvests have decreased, but fish farming as increased so that per capita available fish has increased. Per capita firewood has decreased, but per capita energy availability has increased.

The greatest limiting factor to all of this is global warming. Global warming has the capacity to disrupt this trend as the changes are more catastrophic in the mathematical sense. That is why there is an emphasis on renewable energy and the need to reduce fossil fuel consumption.

For a longer discussion of this issue, I encourage you to listen to the Economics Detective podcast, specifically the episode dealing with the wagers: The Second Ehrlich-Simon Wager with Joanna Szurmak

> As our economy changes it follows that people with skills that are no longer in demand will naturally desire to relocate to wherever their skills are still needed, since it is often easier to do that than learn new skills.

See this is one of those in a vacuum statements that sound great but are completely outside the purview of life.

Lets say you are a node.js developer at the top of your game in your 40's with stagnant wages or even expecting a pay cut. You aren't walking into the home you own and telling your wife and kids, 'hey i know you guys love the schools you fought so hard to get into and i know you will miss all your friends and social circles we have accrued over a lifetime here and honey i know your charity work is really important to you but we must relocate to {mainland Europe} because we'd take an effective 4% paycut'

This kind of stuff just doesn't happen, ever. We have multiple books on the subject, because the same argument is made over and over again about capital flight. The truth is that the decision making process is very complex and its a mixture of many qualitative factors and people have a large preferential bias for what they know.

If you want further reading material and a comprehensive study, check out The Myth of Millionaire Tax Flight: How Place Still Matters for the Rich

I'm not sure your hypothesis is backed by the evidence. People are plenty different, not just due to cultural differences, but also due to basic differences in their personalities (which are largely determined by genes).

Moreover, to say that Ice-T's agreement with Rush on the issue of gun control is evidence that we're all simiilar s spurious. Let's see how they compare on other issues? These two are oil and water. That they agree on one issue at all is surprising.

Edit: This is a great read on the issue http://www.amazon.com/The-Big-Sort-Clustering-Like-Minded/dp/0547237723/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1343416477&sr=8-1&keywords=the+big+sort

Yes. Progressives, particularly progressive POC. To learn a lot more about why this is a smart strategy, check out Brown is the New White.

Another really smart strategy more Democrats need to get on board with is funding POC-lead community organizing groups. Find some here! These are the groups that put in the tough, long-term work to organize and turn out the black and brown communities that form the Democratic base. In the run-up to Doug Jones' win, Movement Vote and other groups gave $500,000 to stipend local women of color to organize at Alabama HBCUs and within their own communities. This is one of the major reasons that black voter turnout was higher than white voter turnout, why we squeaked out a victory, and why the Senate is in play now.

Donate to one of these fantastic groups today!

Or don't, your call. But at least check out the website.

We're going a bit off topic, but a strong theory is that the world will have a population decline or stagnation. Hopefully at that point we can live better, and maintain cultural ties to eating meat.

> By living in the same place where there are role models of people who care about the property, and the property itself is maintained to very high standards, you create an atmosphere that demands respect.

Nope, there is tons of data showing that this is demonstrably not true. That is exactly how people theorized Section 8 would work, and it hasn't: the worst drag people down, the best get the hell out and form their own communities.

I realize you're in the ivory tower. I hope that you'll actually listen to what the real landlords are telling you here.

>It didn't really change anybody's mind, and one's view on it was 99% shaped by what they were already thinking.

These books are about why they think that way. Hillbilly Elegy is about communities (mainly the non-urban communities that gave Trump huge support) that feel left behind and the recent history and thinking of those groups. The Big Sort is about the homogenization of social groups and thinking in the US, leading to why people feel comfortable throwing "grenades". The Righteous Mind is a book on the psychology of morality and politics in the US and why the ideologies are so different.

Trump may have won big with white voters of all stripes, but he also did better among Latinos than Romney, so it's obvious that it isn't just "poor uneducated whites", but if people don't try to figure out why the division is so strong and where the other side is coming from, what chance do we have for uniting and restoration?

I live in the most liberal district in one of the most liberal cities in the US. I have no difficulty in understanding that perspective and its driving forces. The other view is not so well illuminated

Edit: though I shouldn't have said anything in the first place. This is the one place I can go to avoid all the cross-talk about politics and ideologies. I like all of you guys and our light conversations about shoes. I'd rather not ruin that for myself.

It has been like this before- it's just that in the post-WWII era, there were two things which no longer hold true:

A fundamental agreement about the social contract- even Eisenhower and Nixon were, by today's standards, New-Deal liberals. Look back at the Nixon-Kennedy debates, and you see that they agreed on much more than they disagreed on.


Second, the party dividing lines and the social dividing lines were much more mis-matched than today. Democrats had to appeal to Northern intellectuals, Texans, Chicago machine politicians while Republicans had to get both Wall Street and rural Blacks. This led to much less doctrinaire policys and more compromise and horse-trading.

More about this here.

I think you're confusing cause and effect.

The big thing that's happened in the last 30-40 years in American politics has been sorting. Look up The Big Sort.

Essentially, before 1965, you had lots of Southern Democrats who were more ideologically conservative and a smaller, but still significant number of Rockefeller Republicans in the North who were more ideologically liberal. The largest reason for congressional dysfunction is that increasingly representatives are more responsive to their constituents than before. This causes more gridlock, not less.

Now, you can argue that those constituents are frequently not thinking of their own best interests, but it's hard to make the case that in the vast majority of instances, congress is more responsive, not less.

No.

First, there is still essentially no space between the most conservative Democrats and the most liberal Republicans. In other words: Joe Manchin is a Democrat, Susan Collins is a Republican, and there is no space between the two. Most aspects of our system (partisan primaries, first past the post voting and congressional mechanics) mean that you are far better off being an outlier in your party than forming your own party.

Sources:
Neutral Rating

[Conservative Rating](http://acuratings.conservative.org/acu-federal-legislative-ratings/?year1=2016&chamber=11&state1=0&sortable=4]

Liberal Rating

Second, the center is smaller than it's ever been. The general public really is divided, with people becoming increasingly polarized. Not only that, but people who vote, volunteer or donate are even more politically partisan than the general public. Finally, those partisan differences are increasingly geographically concentrated which, combined with gerrymandering, means that the median voter for most house districts is well within the bounds of the existing parties.

Sources:

Pew 2014

Pew 2017

The Big Sort (2009)

Finally, both America and Britain had very clearly centrist parties in control in the 90's and early 2000's. Clinton's Democrats/Blair's Labour and Bush's Republican/Cameron's Tories were both much more centrist. All 4 coalitions have essentially been destroyed in the wake of Iraq and the 2008 financial crisis - none were able to prevent the revolt of their partisan base by attracting moderate voters from the other party.

In conclusion, you generally can't create a new party in a two party system, and this is a uniquely bad time to try and do so.

I've said it before but it definitely bears repeating; "The Big Sort; Why the clustering of Like-Minded America is Tearing us Apart," by Bill Bishop should be required reading for all Americans. It is a book-length study of this subject and will convince all but the most determined skeptic. While the urban/rural divide is a huge component, it is not all of the story and the reality is a bit more complicated which is what you'd expect.

We could "un-sort" our way out of this by calling for a influx of citizens into the low-population states. California certainly can spare some. Of course, not all current Californians would be interested in that, However, there should still be more than enough to slowly bring the desirable changes and comforts into the ex-red states. Start with the Dakotas and Montana.

Currently reading, and would like to finish:

1. Interaction Ritual Chains by Randal Collins
   
   Started in 2014, put down, would like to finish in 2015:
   
   
2. Aztecs by Inga Clendinnen
   
   
3. The Ego Tunnel by Thomas Metzinger
   
   Would like to re-read in 2015:
   
   
4. Infinite Jest by David Foster Wallace
   
   
5. White Noise by Don DeLillo
   
   
6. Anathem by Neal Stephenson
   
   Would like to read in 2015:
   
   
7. The Power Broker by Robert A. Caro
   
   
8. A couple of books for /r/SF_Book_Club
   
   
9. Blindsight and Echopraxia by Peter Watts, back-to-back
   
   
10. At least one or two books on Buddhist philosophy / practice
    
    
11. At least one or two books on philosophy, either philo of mind or more cultural studies / anthro / sociology type stuff.

Well anyways, here's a NRx reading list I'm slowly making my way through...

​



Introduction

The Dark Enlightenment Defined*
The Dark Enlightenment Explained*
The Path to the Dark Enlightenment*
The Essence of the Dark Enlightenment*
An Introduction to Neoreaction*
Neoreaction for Dummies*

Reactionary Philosophy in a Nutshell*
The Dark Enlightenment – Nick Land*

The Neoreactionary Canon

The Cathedral Explained*

When Wish Replaces Thought Steven Goldberg *

Three Years of Hate – In Mala Fide***

****

The Decline

We are Doomed – John Derbyshire*
America Alone – Mark Steyn*
After America – Mark Steyn*
Death of the West – Pat Buchanan***
The Abolition of Britain – Peter Hitchens

****

Civil Society and Culture

Coming Apart – Charles Murray
Disuniting of America – Arthur Schlesinger
The Quest for Community – Robert Nisbet
Bowling Alone – Robert Putnam
Life at the Bottom – Theodore Dalrymple
Intellectuals and society – Thomas Sowell

****

Western Civilization

Civilization: The West and the Rest – Niall Ferguson
Culture Matters – Samuel Huntington
The Uniqueness of Western Civilization – Ricardo Duchesne

****

Moldbuggery

Mencius Moldbug is one of the more influential neoreactionaries. His blog, Unqualified Reservations, is required reading; if you have not read Moldbug, you do not understand modern politics or modern history. Start here for an overview of major concepts: Moldbuggery Condensed. Introduction to Moldbuggery has the Moldbug reading list. Start with Open Letter series, then simply go from the beginning.*

****

​

Would highly recommend the book "For the Love of Cities"

https://www.amazon.com/Love-Cities-affair-between-people/dp/0615430430

Yeah it's not nearly 5-1, but in certain parts of China the ratios are more skewed than in others. I think the highest was around 1.7. You might be interested in the book Unnatural Selection by Mara Hvistendahl. Goes into a lot of detail about why the ratios are so skewed and why it's a self perpetuating issue.

This assumes America is or was one culture. Different historians classify people differently, but in the broadest sense there are at least:

1. Yankee
   
2. Southern (Dixie + Appalachian)
   
3. Midland
   
4. Western/Native/Frontier/Spanish
   
   Embedded in these groups is the idea of a founding culture (going back centuries) that informs attitudes and ideals. To your point regarding skepticism toward education, I think that's a feature primarily of the Appalachian group who were founded by one of the last waves of British immigrants. Glossing over a lot of history: they were poor, desperate, war-torn, and generally uneducated. Late to the party and culturally incompatible with many of the existing colonists, they headed for the hills and subsisted in a romantic but precarious manner. This is where we get the frontiersman and the rugged individualist myth. While tied to "southern" culture (for a number of interesting reasons that we will ignore for simplicity of this comment), they're really pretty distinct. For whatever reasons, this group has asserted itself and suggested their version of "American culture" is the correct one--and we've been living through this friction for a while.
   
   For a layperson, I suggest the following for further reading:
   
   

• https://www.amazon.com/American-Nations-History-Regional-Cultures/dp/0143122029
  
• https://www.amazon.com/Our-Patchwork-Nation-Surprising-America/dp/B0045BQT14/
  
  If you're up for a more academic and thorough examination:
  
  
• https://www.amazon.com/Albions-Seed-British-Folkways-cultural/dp/0195069056/
  
• https://www.amazon.com/Bound-Away-Virginia-Westward-Movement/dp/0813917743/

These two ethnographies are easy/pleasant reads, frequently used in undergraduate courses:

• Marjorie Shostak, Nisa: The Life and Words of a !Kung Woman
  
• Jean L. Briggs, Never in Anger: Portrait of an Eskimo Family
  
  Ethnographies written almost solely for the purpose of introducing hunter-gatherer societies to college freshmen/sophomores include ...
  
  
• Richard B. Lee, The Dobe Ju/'Hoansi
  
• Colin Turnbull, The Mbuti Pygmies: Change and Adaptation
  
• James F. Downs, The Two Worlds of the Washo: An Indian Tribe of California and Nevada
  
• E. Adamson Hoebel, The Cheyennes: Indians of the Great Plains
  
• N. A. Chance, The Iñupiat and Arctic Alaska: An Ethnography of Development
  
• Hart, Pilling, & Goodale, The Tiwi of North Australia
  
• Robert Tonkinson, The Mardu Aborigines: Living the Dream in Australia's Desert
  
  These teaching ethnographies have been around for decades, so while they don't reflect current scholarship, it should be possible to pick them all up for a couple of bucks each, and I think you'd get a lot out of browsing them that's lost in comparative work.

There's an interesting book about this, The Big Sort by Bill Bishop. It looks at how people have moved to areas that align more with their politics, consciously or unconsciously, over the past 50 years. Worth a read if you like this sort of thing.

This is really great. This is the first time I have heard an analysis of what really is going on.

He only goes so far here. To carry his ideas further, leaving more money in the hands of two-income families where the two incomes are similar, more money for their parenting, is still making the woman work. A woman who has to work is going to have fewer children than one who is home, and she may divorce from sheer exasperation and exhaustion.

But his ideas are right, about the parental wage concept, and about the valuing of parenting specifically and visibly. A very exciting speaker and writer, this guy Lyman Stone.

"Hi. I'm Suzie. I want to bankrupt you by marrying you and having children" is not a nice pick-up line. That's how you get "men going their own way."

Or, "Hi. I'm John. I want to make you work and raise kids too. I'll help when I can, but money will be tight, and you will be tired, and miss the kids all day. Sorry, but that's the best I've got, under the present tax system." Not much better.

I wish Lyman Stone would write a book. I tried to find his name on Amazon but it's not there. He could just self-publish on Amazon, simply bundling the articles he has already written. I also want to hear from his wife. Let her contribute a piece to this book.

This is another book: I haven't read it.

https://www.amazon.com/Empty-Planet-Global-Population-Decline/dp/1984823213/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=empty+planet&qid=1570079917&sr=8-1

Here's a book I like >>>> "Nothing to do with Islam"

Some lesser known books about the Islamification of Europe that I recommend:

East Meat

Enemy of the state

Dark Albion: Requiem for Britain

Fistfights with Muslims in Europe (better than the title suggests. Basically a travelogue of an American in Europe whom is coming to terms with a continent undergoing profound change)

Sweden in a time of Immigration: How the Sweden Democrats turned the elite into a frenzy

The issues are more complex than this one thing.

I was reading a great book on demographics called Empty Planet which suggests that developed nations like Canada do not have a birth rate to required to replace those who die. Our national rate is 1.5 births / woman, and 2.1 is needed to keep the population we have. In fact,

>1971 was the last year our birth rate matched where it needed to be to renew the population without immigration. source

Because of our ageing population, most women are past prime childbearing years, and if you look at the population pyramid on this site it looks like more than 1/2 our population is over 40 years old.

From this source it looks like only NL has a lower fertility rate than QUE.

In general, entry level jobs need younger people, and with immigration and the children they bring, there will be many entry level jobs with few workers to fill them, and few top end jobs, with a surplus of people over 40 looking for them.

Are you assuming that there haven't been large demographic shifts in the past 20-30 years where the American populace have sorted themselves along common areas of culture? Journalists and political science PhDs write books about this sort of thing (for example: https://www.amazon.com/Big-Sort-Clustering-Like-Minded-America/dp/0547237723).

The people of the Northern Rocky Mountain states are substantively different from Californians, with different value sets, economic ideas, etc. How do you guarantee that decisions that affect those states aren't afflicted with a California flavor that is distasteful to those non-Californians?

> forcing people into echo chambers of conformity

Nah man they do that on their own really really well. For an investigation of this phenomenon at scale in the real world, check out Bill Bishop's The Big Sort.

> excessive moderation

Funny, the least echo-chamber-ey subs I know of are some of the most heavily moderated. See /r/NeutralPolitics or /r/PoliticalDiscussion.

Here's what you're referring to: the book The Myth of Millionaire Tax Flight: How Place Still Matters for the Rich by Christobal Young. Here's a short version of the book. Millionaires and billionaires in the US and Worldwide don't actually leave their homes that much and stay where they have jobs or businesses, in general where they live.
The thing is, that the US and other developed nations should pursue not simply taxing the richest of the rich, but also the crackdown on tax havens.

Cast away stories

Er vel den nærmest jeg finner, men ikke skrevet av en Italiener, de er dog journalister.

Refugee Life - Journey across Africa

Handler om noen som gifter seg med en Italiener, men er ikke journalist.

Crimes of Peace
Mediterranean Migrations at the World's Deadliest Border


Skrevet av en Italiener, men professor.

>citation

In Empty Planet, John Ibbitson and Darrell Bricker find that a smaller global population will bring with it many benefits: fewer workers will command higher wages; the environment will improve; the risk of famine will wane; and falling birthrates in the developing world will bring greater affluence and autonomy for women.

But enormous disruption lies ahead, too. We can already see the effects in Europe and parts of Asia, as aging populations and worker shortages weaken the economy and impose crippling demands on healthcare and social security. The United States and Canada are well-positioned to successfully navigate these coming demographic shifts--that is, unless growing isolationism leads us to close ourselves off just as openness becomes more critical to our survival than ever.

I don't think that we're overpopulated at all. And human population has already entered the beginning stages of global decline. John Ibbitson wrote a good book on it called Empty Planet. I find it a convincing argument as to why the major issue now is population stagnation and decline.

Go read any ethnography and some books about ethnographic methods.

Some classic ethnographies/etc are

• The Forest People (I've seen this one free online before)
  
  
• The Dobe Ju/'Hoansi
  
• Facing Mt. Kenya
  
  
• Participant Observation
  
• Paradigm Wars
  
  
• Yanomamo
  
  
• Changes in the Land
  
  I could probably think of some more decent ones but it's not a bad list to start with.

I've been reading Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction by Adam Jones, which from what I gather is the definitive textbook for any undergraduate Genocide Studies course. The introductory chapters in particular examine different scholars' definitions of "genocide," as well as case studies examining multiple examples of events over which scholars debate whether they constitute "genocide." I also cannot recommend it enough, because Jones also caters toward those who want to read further into the literature on the subject in multiple disciplines.

A demographic shift taking place nationwide. This book puts it in a good context.

Yeah, one criticism that I have about this particular documentary is that it absolves the US, UN, etc., entirely of their role in the population control debate.

Unnatural Selection is a great book for explaining exactly why they are aborting their female children. If boy preference alone was the only thing driving the sex ratio, then you should see this in Japan as well, but you do not. The Western world has much blood on its hands regarding this issue, but its unspoken of entirely, and the fact that this book has been acclaimed on ALL sides of the political spectrum speaks to how many in the world know about it, but do not say anything.

A fairly popular book was written on this very subject back in 2009. The Big Sort

It depends on who is controlling the party and what they are listening to. I discussed this at great length in my book, GOP GPS. https://www.amazon.com/GOP-GPS-Millennials-Republican-Survive/dp/1510717323/

If conservatives had their way, the federal budget would be smaller. Certain large federal bureaucracies would be shut down and dismantled. There would be no Obamacare and no Dodd Frank.

What we have right now is not conservative rule, it's a stalemate. Given the polarization in society at large, the stalemate is a product of politicians on both sides of the aisle representing their constituents as best they can.

The problem isn't Congress; it's the constituents. A radical polarization has occurred in American society over the past few decades. This book offers one possible explanation. Unless we citizens can bridge the gaps in society, we should not expect Congress to do it for us.

Edit: I shouldn't say the budget would be smaller under conservatives. They certainly didn't do much to shrink it in the Bush years.

honestly, just get into anthropology and you'll get plenty of stuff. graeber is just a well known anthropologist who is openly anarchist, but he talks about a lot of the same stuff that many other anthropologists talk about. i once randomly dumpstered this book (crappy pdf of it here ) only to find that it happened to be an anthropological study of a non-hierarchical society.

Historically in broad strokes no.


https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/vox/the-ezra-klein-show/e/55554701

There's arguably good reason for the ideological homogeneous formations around identity, coalitional, and party politics.


This can only happen within political systems which prop up binary choices.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law


Edit: additional polarization reading

https://www.amazon.com/Big-Sort-Clustering-Like-Minded-America/dp/0547237723

Keyword: The Big Sort

You could look at:
Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction
or
Blood and Soil: A World History of Genocide and Extermination from Sparta to Darfur

​

> The Dobe Juǀ'hoan

The book you are referring to is a case study of a particular people group, themselves a subset of the San, perhaps you've heard of them from the movie The Gods Must Be Crazy. Unsurprisingly, they haven't been treated well and in the past 30 years their traditional marriage customs have certainly changed. And while I won't debate the merits of those past or current customs, bridge kidnapping isn't occurring in egalitarian societies.

first as much I would like Andrew Yang will not get the democratic nomination the best thing that could happen is his ideas get incorporated into someone else campaign.

The worse part is that while we can use the VAT and decrease social services to give everyone 1000 dollars a month here is the fundamental problem the American mindset conditioned to see this as "increase my taxes', "welfare" and "pull yourself up by your bootstraps bs".

Who would turn out for this would be more urban, younger and minority voters. This argument is baseless and pointless...

Whatever this moderate weird libertarian story is we don't need it:

https://www.thenation.com/article/david-brooks-never-trump/

**screw brooks btw**

Also you can read this book:

https://www.amazon.com/Brown-New-White-Demographic-Revolution/dp/1620971151

It's an old theory.
https://www.amazon.com/Big-Sort-Clustering-Like-Minded-America/dp/0547237723

https://www.amazon.com/Big-Sort-Clustering-Like-Minded-America/dp/0547237723

Certains avancent que ce triage social nourri la polarisation politique excessive que beaucoup de pays développés connaissent à divers degrés. Et la France n'est pas nécessairement la pire élève de ce coté là, mais n'est pas non plus indemne de cette situation.

Not /u suicidedreamer but this segmentation of society is not just online you also have multiple books written on it http://www.amazon.com/Big-Sort-Clustering-Like-Minded-America/dp/0547237723/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1457777624&sr=8-1&keywords=the+big+sort

Even before that you had the removal of urban centers which were focus points/meeting grounds for exposure to people from different walks of life.

Wen das Thema interessiert, dem kann ich "The Big Sort" von Bill Bishop empfehlen. Ist zwar schon von 2008, aber auch in den USA aktueller denn je.

There's a book titled The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like-Minded America is Tearing Us Apart by Bill Bishop. I haven't read it myself and only came across it yesterday, but it seems relevant to what we're discussing here.

read [http://www.amazon.com/Disuniting-America-Reflections-Multicultural-Enlarged/dp/0393318540]

read [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_M._Schlesinger,_Jr.]

read [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyphenated_American]

Trollaat nyt jäämällä kiinni hyvin epäoleelliseen asiaan, mutta okei. Ihan hauska aihehan tämä on.

Olemassaoleva tiede tuntuu tukevan väitteitäni, vaikkakin en usko että sitä voi suoraan soveltaa Suomen monipuoluejärjestelmään.

https://academic.oup.com/joc/article-abstract/64/2/317/4085994 Tässä tutkimuksessa havainnoitiin erittäin merkittävää homofiliaa republikaanien ja demokraattien twitterin sosiaalisissa graafeissa.

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9781137276773_2 Lisää poliittista homofiliaa graafien avulla

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0093650218813655 Vähän erilainen tutkimus poliittisesta homofiliasta redditissä

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25953820 Todettiin aika selkeää poliittista homofiliaa facebookin sosiaalisissa graafeissa.

https://www.amazon.com/Big-Sort-Clustering-Like-Minded-America/dp/0547237723
https://www.economist.com/united-states/2008/06/19/the-big-sort En saanut kirjasta helposti kopiota, mutta economistin artikkelissa on mielenkiintoista juttua poliittisesta homofiliasta liittyen asumiseen.

Voisin jatkaa mutta eiköhän noilla pääse hyvin alkuun.

Oletan että olemme tässä vaiheessa samaa mieltä vahvan poliittisen homofilian läsnäolosta sosiaalisessa mediassa. Jos näin on, graafianalyysi vaikuttaa äärimmäisen tehokkaalta työkalulta äänestyskäyttäytymisen ennustamiseen ainakin kaksipuoluejärjestelmässä. Koska pystymme luotettavasti ennustamaan ihmisten äänestyskäyttäytymistä, pystymme myös havaitsemaan mahdollisia poikkeamia sosiaalisen piirin sekä äänestyskoppikuvien välillä.



Toki voitaisiin myös yksinkertaistaa ja lähettää poliittisia kyselyitä äänestyskoppikuvien postaajille, merkittävät poikkeamat kyselyvastausten ja todellisen äänestyskäytöksen välillä kertoisi jo aika paljon.

Uskoisin että näitä kahta tekniikkaa yhdistämällä voitaisiin jo päästä aika selkeisiin tuloksiin.



>Eli tämä vaalivilppikuvaaminen erotetaan normikuvaamisesta "työkalujen" ja "graafin analyysin" avulla. Mites toimitaan jos kuvaaja on vaihtanut kameran polaarisuuden tai jos salamavalon vaiheinen on ollut tainnutus -asennossa?

Ehkä puhuit tässä jonkinlaisesta teknisestä keinosta tunnistaa äänestyskoppikuvia? Jos näin oli, en koe teknisiä keinoja tässä kovin tarpeelliseksi. Suomen populaatio on niin pieni että tämä olisi triviaalinen ongelma ratkaista vaikkapa mechanical turkilla.

An insightful read. It is a short abstract, it seems, from the recent book The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like-Minded America Is Tearing Us Apart by Bill Bishop, presumably also the author of the article.

A two-party system is really bad. Proportional representation leads to a richer exchange of ideas, and more emphasis on consensus. Election reform could undo the political segregation.

You are an idiot. There are no "low-IQ areas" or-"high-IQ areas" and all of humanity's modern economic, scientific, and cultural achievements are not driven by my people from low birth rate countries. It is correct that most Western, industrialized countries do not have birthrates at or greater than replacement fertility. For better discussion of this I recommend the book Empty Planet. India's fertility rate is above replacement rate and yet immigrants from India seem to do fine Western industrialized countries. Actually, there are too many nutty things in your post for me to address so I'm going to stop here. Go back to your gaming.

> You're fooling yourself if you think that's the primary issue.

And yet, report after report shows that geographical self-sorting is the number one driver. ^123

> No one is debating compactness as the main problem that creates gerrymandering. The issue is political lines drawn to minimize Democratic voters.

And yet, here you are doing exactly that.

How is it victim blaming when you are the one carrying out the action..... If a district is 50-50 in Kentucky and 10% of Democrats are continually moving to a more liberal area rather it is a city or a state to be surrounded by people with similar views then that district will probably never go blue again. There is even a good book on the topic called the big sort. https://smile.amazon.com/Big-Sort-Clustering-Like-Minded-America/dp/0547237723?sa-no-redirect=1 . Also regardless of your strong personal opinion on the topic that will result in losing the House and state legislatures in most of the south and west every year barring a financial collapse or impeachment that provokes a backlash.