Do People Really Vote Against Their Economic Self-Interest?

One of the recurring mysteries of the past few decades is why do some people continually vote against their economic self-interest? Why do they seemingly prioritize non-economic factors over their economic interest even to the point of voting for people who will actually make their lives less economically viable if elected? A number of explanations are put forth – social issues, prejudice, guns – but that requires that people remain economically irrational for an extended period of time, not just for a momentary lapse of judgment. It is very unlikely that a large group of people in many different areas of the country would all be irrational for a long time. It is more likely that the observers of the trend are the ones who are mistaken, that they misunderstand the economic worldview of these people – predominately in small towns and rural areas, but by no means confined to them. It is more a failure of imagination and empathy on the observers’ part to understand that there is more than one perceived rational economic reality. It seems unimaginable to these observers that these irrational people could in fact have a very rational view of their economic self-interest, just one very much at odds with the perceived wisdom. How can these people not perceive the economic reality that has been perceived for them? The difference is rooted in the fact that these supposedly irrational people can actually see their future. And their future is telling them they are screwed with no one really trying to help them. Their future shows fewer jobs, lower wages, declining government resources, and smaller, aging populations. They see nothing in the current economic environment that will help them stay afloat much less prosper. They feel abandoned, reviled, and ridiculed – not least because outsiders consider them too stupid to know what’s good for them. Acceptable perceived rational economic self-interest is that they should pursue more education, develop higher level skills, and move if necessary to where the good jobs are. If they don’t follow that model then they are not acting in their own best interest. Instead they stay rooted where they are, vote for politicians who support their backward social views while robbing them of the programs that could help them, and fall further out of the economic mainstream. All of which is true, but it is not rooted in an irrational economic worldview. It is based instead upon a very real analysis that the economic future being offered to them by the mainstream is not very attractive and not nearly as good as either their current economic situation or, especially, their past one. Unless they can be offered an economic future that is better than what they have, and, most significantly, have had, the calculus for determining what is the best economic future will be affected by the relative possible outcomes. How does this play out? Let’s say you’re a 50-year-old male just laid off from a good job. The accepted rational economic self-interest would have him return to school, get new skills, move if required to find a job, and live a better life thereafter. So why does he not do this? School takes a long time and you need money for the courses and living. A lot of people are doing the same thing so the area gets flooded with job-seekers for a limited number of jobs. Moving requires leaving family and friends, selling a house in a dead market, and moving somewhere on your own with very few resources to make it work. It is not a vision that inspires many people. So, this is where that so-called irrational voting comes in. A lot of it gets couched in social issue terms and it often appears to be a motivating factor, but the real crux is the economic message they are being offered. In addition to all the social messaging, the economic message is that the past economic world will be renewed. That the future economic world will look like the past one and far exceed whatever else is on offer. Unless and until someone can offer them an economic future that is better than their economic present and, most importantly, their past one, they will choose the one that looks better. It is not that they put much stock in the ability of these politicians to actually deliver, but it looks like at least as high a probability and far faster than whatever else is on offer. They’re not living in the past but making a calculated bet that sticking with what they know has a higher potential payoff. So, the question then becomes, how do you give them a better economic future that will move them forward with the rest of the economy? And, how do you address the challenge of meeting the different needs of the older workers versus those who are younger or still in school? The needs of the older workers have to be addressed now, which is why restoring their old economic life is so attractive, while the needs of the younger workers have a longer time horizon to be met. It would seem that the way forward is to find a way to draw money from urban/suburban areas into the small towns and rural areas both by private and government resources. A lot of people in small towns and the countryside believe they subsidize the cities and suburbs, which no longer is the case. The incomes and economic activity is so much higher in cities that they dwarf the rural areas. Making small towns and rural areas economically viable will require a transfer of wealth of no small magnitude, but not a budget buster, either. The two areas will have to be economically integrated to an extent they never have been and contact between them will have to increase in order for any programs to be successful. Fortunately, we now are developing ways to accomplish this that just a few years ago would not have been possible. High-speed broadband can accomplish a lot of this integration and is now a high priority for many states. With the internet as a backbone, a small town can improve schools with video classes, keep hospitals open, operate businesses whose main customers are in cities, make connections for selling goods worldwide, create videoconferencing facilities, and provide entertainment such as movies or concerts. All of which make the towns a more attractive place to live and can boost incomes. Greater involvement by regional colleges, improved infrastructure, and income sustenance for retraining and living would need to be upgraded by state and federal governments. Business creation will be important in addressing jobs for the older workers. This is far from a complete proposal and more than broadband will be required. Many aspects are already being implemented in parts of the country, but there is as of yet no complete concerted effort. Would it work? Would the people in small towns and rural areas seize the opportunities such an approach will provide? You need look no further than those quintessential rural folk, farmers and ranchers, for your answer. Farming and ranching today bear little resemblance to what they were like 20 years ago, much less 50 years or more. You’re no longer just a farmer or rancher, but a small businessman who happens to farm or raise livestock. The technology being utilized, the business needs, and global competitiveness have all forced farmers and ranchers to fundamentally alter how they run their operations. It was adapt or die and most have adapted. It is still not easy, but it does show that these areas are not lost causes. Lest anyone think this is catering just to these ever-shrinking economically important areas populated largely by whites, this applies as well to those parts of our cities and suburbs experiencing many of the same issues. It may be that the people are of different colors in these areas, but the problems of job loss, substandard schools, deteriorating housing, and negative social issues knows no color. These two areas are natural allies if they will only remember that the most important color in America is now, and has always been, green.