[mschuster91]

> The idea that someone who is rich and embedded in the media for the entire professional life is not part of the establishment is really confusing to me.

People usually mean "political establishment" as "people who entered their party's youth org at 14 and since then never left working for their party". Which is bad because a politician who never had to do a real-world job in his life can neither understand nor empathize with the problems of the average population.

[clappski]

I find this point of view to be a bit of hogwash, being a politician _is_ a real life job, it's not just some part time doing-it-for-fun thing.

[mschuster91]

The realities of a politician job are wildly disconnected from a "real world" job, though. No "fire/hire at will", for example - once a politician is elected, he/she can serve the term without having to fear unemployment on the next day. No matter how he/she performs, the only way to get rid of an elected politician is criminal behaviour (and as seen with Arpaio, sometimes even openly defying judges is not a reason to be forced to quit).

In Germany, all members of parliament also get a pretty pension package - minimum of 1.682€ per month, which is FAR more than many old people ever get.

Politicians NEVER have to experience the worries of "normal people" like "how am I going to survive as a pensioner?", "how do I feed my kids when I don't have any money left?" or "how am I going to pay rent this month?" - and with a greater and greater rate of "working poor" or unemployed people, the disconnect will rise accordingly.

[ant6n]

If being part of the 'establishment' means that you never had to worry about being fired, never had to worry about money, never had to worry about feeding your kids or paying rent -- then Trump is part of the establishment.

[Chris2048]

No, x -> y does not imply y -> x