The missing factor is that when shoe production was completely sourced to a few companies in China (70% of US market), nearly all shoes turned to shit. So Payless wasn’t really differentiated itself from any other value brand.
The end of Payless is just another private equity story, and poor kids will just get a smaller variety of shitty shoes from WalMart, TJMaxx, or Dollar General.
The majority of us get screwed in other ways, as we pay more for increasingly lousy footwear.
It's a shame how true this is. My wife went through three pairs of Nike shoes -- all of them were over $100 and they caused bruises and wounds on her feet. I have a pair of Nikes as well that is one of their higher end shoes, and even they are extremely uncomfortable to wear for walking.
As an aside, Payless Shoes also has bittersweet memories for me. When I was young, I didn't fully comprehend what shopping there meant because I was in my own filter bubble -- growing up in the American midwest. Now, I feel conflicted and judged and out-of-place after having a few lucky breaks that enabled me to break into tech and live in the Valley. It didn't even click to me until recently the real connotations of shopping at these kinds of places. I really appreciate being able to shop at Nike, and wish I could go back in time and keep some of my original self-confidence of being able to wear Payless Shoes in a tier-one city free of judgment.
Now you can be judged for wearing Nike, especially if you step out of that city or travel back to visit the American midwest. New Balance is a far better choice.
Nike is doing better than ever, and it's silly to even suggest that wearing the best-selling brand of athletic shoes would be an issue anywhere in the US.
Never been to PayLess, is it any good, or rather was it?
Also, should mention TJMaxx has decent stuff. Never bought shoes there but I get pants, shirts, and random stuff for the house. My wife gets plenty of clothes there though.
I buy shoes that look like leather loafers but as basically as floppy as slippers. This is exactly what I want and need. They are respectable enough to wear in work situations but I can also use them for martial arts or any other physical activity. Basically, they're nearly as good as barefoot, which isn't practical for various reasons.
I find it ironic that a lot of folks buy $120 "toe shoes" when they learn of the value of nearly barefoot ... when they could just buy the proper cheap shoes instead.
(Edit, I've studied bodywork, balance system and such. The arch supports and such of "good shoes" are arguably actually back for most people, interfering with the natural rhythm of walking, etc).
Payless did sell some perfectly sensible utilitarian mens black leather-looking walking shoes, which got me through grad school.
I upgraded to DSW when I could afford (or cost-justify) it, and mainly for dating appearance reasons.
Currently, I have to order running shoes, to get the right size&color of a model I know works for me (local running shop sadly doesn't carry it), but the durability has gotten so poor that I contacted the well-regarded brand corporate.
6 months to a year is what I generally get out of "high quality" name brands like asics and nike, the only difference seems to be which part of the shoe goes first, with budget brands it's the sole, more expensive ones it tends to get holes around the top of the toe area.
A lot of it comes down to which kinds of shoes you buy from which maker. I buy many leather Jordans and SB Dunks from Nike and have never had a pair fall apart before I donate them. Currently wearing Jordans I bought in 2017 and have worn ~500 times since then. Other than minor scuffs and outsole wear, they're in fantastic condition.
I have the opposite problem. When I was a kid(very active, used 8+ hours a day) all I had were shoes from Payless and they lasted two years. Recently I have purchased different "high quality" brands in the $50+ range and each has worn through the soles in less than six months. I barely wear my shoes an hour each day.
> The majority of us get screwed in other ways, as we pay more for increasingly lousy footwear.
Tell me about it. I can usually find name-brand running shoes for under $80 on clearance, but many models are just garbage that will fall apart after a few dozen miles. La Sportiva or New Balance? Mostly good. Salomon? Hit or miss.
> The end of Payless is just another private equity story
There have been a few of these, lately. I'm having a hard time telling if the debt PE loaded the firms with is the problem, or if it only sped up the inevitable. PE doesn't buy companies because they're doing well; it buys them because they're failing.
Oddly enough, I order my running shoes directly from China. Usually spend $30-$40 a pair, but get arguably the most comfortable and highest quality running shoes I have owned. For comparison, I used to buy mostly New Balance or occasionally Nike.
The article doesn't mention this, but it looks like this happened after a leveraged buyout by private equity firms in 2012 (similar to other big retail chains like Toys R Us or Sports Authority)
> we racked up hours roaming fluorescent lit aisles, inhaling the smell of off-gassing pleather.
Funny. And if I had to bet on one term that could completely change the materials of which consumer products are made, possibly sparking a consumer materials revolution, "off-gassing" would be it. Once you learn about it, it's always there, nagging you to ventilate or throw out.
In fact I'd say that along with terms like "gaslighting" and "toxic relationship" enjoying recent prominence, times have never been better for terms capturing the psychological rejection of toxins driving humans headlong toward life change.
As an industrial specialist term, sure. I'm not sure if you've noticed but the term "off-gassing" now has a more general meaning & life of its own outside of that domain. I've heard people use it for situations up to and including stinky clothes and flatulence over the last few years.
Shoes is one of those things I almost never need to buy, now that I'm an adult and fully grown. Even the very cheapest ones can last me 10 years or more without wearing out.
Actually, it's the Nikes that wear out much faster, it seems.
PS:(edit)
I walk around a decent amount and even go running 6 to 9 miles per week. Even a super cheap pair of running shoes won't show any holes in it for 4+ years at least. The Nike ones I had started falling apart in just in less than 2 years.
And yes, I do have about 10 pairs, but tend to stick to 4-5 pair at a time time. and I don't throw them away until the wear is so low that an actual hole forms or even multiple holes/rips form. most of time just get some plimsolls, those tend to last forever.
I go through a pair of sneakers a year, at the least. And these aren't the wal-mart and payless brands either! I'm talking, Reebok or Sketchers that cost ~ $80-$100 USD+. I don't do anything strenuous, just normal wear and tear. But what I can't understand is why it costs so much for a piece of rubber and some canvas (or cloth), only to wear out in a few months time! Communities need places like Payless where $30 or less gets you a pair of shoes that lasts a school year, or 12 months. That's a decent trade off for most people, considering that paying 3X as much (in my experience) doesn't get you 3X the longevity or quality.
I am tired of cheaply made, crap quality, no padding, abysmal traction shoes that cost so much money. At least when I pay the $20-$30 for a pair, my expectations meet the experience.
I'm guessing the OP doesn't use their shoes for much more than walking around indoors. On the other hand when I skateboarded to work I'd go through a pair of shoes about every 3 months (that's what happens when your brake is your shoe). It was still cheaper than gas and faster than public transit though.
You should learn to break by "stomping" the ground instead of sanding down your shoes. Dragging your foot on the ground to brake should happen quite rarely, when it would be dangerous or really tiring not to.
Although if you live in a place with tons of really steep hills like San Francisco, 3 months is probably par for the course.
Well this was skateboarding for 4 miles total per day. I was in mixed traffic and bike lanes, going down hills and due to the crazy way people drive in SF dangerous situations happened quite a lot.
I had a pair of Converse that I used for this purpose. Completely torn to shreds and full of holes. Had an Asian lady stay at our Airbnb and she saw them, said people would go crazy for that "distressed" look in Asia (forget the specific country) so I gave them to her for her to take back.
Reminds me of a time when I was in Seoul. I had just bought a crisp pair of all white walking shoes.
I was on the train with my girlfriend (att) and she deliberately stamped on my foot. Of course, I was quite confused; however, she explained that my shoes looked too new and thus needed to be dirtied up a bit.
Same, I bought a quite expensive pair of Chippewa brand engineering boots ($500 US) and they're going on 5 years strong. The only care I need is the occasional wax, scuff removal, and a re-sole.
The cost may seem a bit much at first, but compare it to buying a cheap pair once every couple of months.
Shoes really are one of the few things in life you shouldn't skimp on.
As an aside, price isn't the only import factor in buying quality shoes. Chippewa are handmade in the US, and it shows. I also bought a pair of relatively expensive Timberland boots for about $250. They were made in China, and the upper lining of the boot came off in less than 6 months. It seems all I paid for was the name.
With you on that, been really happy wearing nicer leather "work"-style boots. They look good, they wear great (after the first couple foot-destroying weeks), they last for-friggin'-ever, and beating them up doesn't really hurt their aesthetic, so far as that goes. I've gone the Redwing Heritage route, getting one pair at a store and using that sizing to buy a couple pairs of seconds in other styles at ~40% off retail for firsts.
I've also become a loafers fan. In US fashion, at least, a good pair of black or dark brown loafers can be worn all the way up to business-formal, to weddings, funerals, et c., but also dressed down to business- or smart-casual, and if they get beat up they just become toss-on-and-go shoes for any occasion, even if it's just mowing the lawn. Again, they last a good long time if they're US- or European-made. I don't think either beats cheap sneakers for price over a lifetime, but then you get whatever benefit a nicer look and a little more formality-range gets you from going for well-crafted leather, and they aren't so much more expensive considering that and how long they last. Sure $200+ for a pair of shoes is a bit of a shock at first, but when they're in your rotation for 10-20 years it seems less crazy.
I play basketball nearly every day -- still at 30. I've gone through a lot of basketball and running shoes. I've never bought any no-name random shoes, but Nikes -- for me at least -- are BY FAR the lowest quality shoes I've worn. They literally fall to pieces within months every time I buy a pair. I can't even complain, because at this point I should know better.
I've found a pair of Asics that have decent traction for basketball. I wore those for years, and then they turned into just my running shoes for years, and I'm still wearing them 6 years later for hiking.
Trail-running shoes are, imo, the best shoes for hiking. I do a ton of hiking and see people all the time in those thick, clunky hiking boots they sell for $200 at REI. Totally unnecessary.
Boots protect against minor injuries and frostbite to shins, calves, toes, soles and ankles and reinforce the same if you do tear something and end up having to limp for miles (splint or not).
My cheap shoes never wear out because I wear out the ones I actually like wearing. So the cheap ones never go away because "who would throw away a perfectly good pair of shoes that still fits?" (the sunk costs problem)
> PS:(edit) I walk around a decent amount and even go running 6 to 9 miles per week. Even a super cheap pair of running shoes won't show any holes in it for 4+ years at least. The Nike ones I had started falling apart in just in less than 2 years.
Running shoes are garbage long before they fall apart or get holes in them. Perhaps you're lucky, but I can't imagine running in my shoes for more than about 350 miles. Nothing feels better than the first run in new running shoes.
I run in Vivobarefoot shoes - they feel pretty much the same when new and after years of running.
Also play various cutting/running sports (soccer, ultimate) and don't notice much of a difference between old and new shoes. My current turf shoes are about eight years old, with multiple games per week over most of that period.
Maybe if you have 10 pairs of shoes and you are sure to wear each pair the same amount, and you don't walk that much. That or you basically never walk on non-carpeted surfaces at all.
I suppose you could also have be having them repaired, but cheap shoes don't tend to be very repairable.
I've had good luck with ecco brand shoes. I've gotten a few different pairs from Nordstrom Rack for cheap, the oldest one being 8 years old and still going strong.
I picked up this[1] pair in particular for about $35 3-4 years ago, and they've been my daily drivers ever since due to blending in well with pretty much anything short of formal business attire. And despite being pretty brutal with my shoes in general, these essentially look the same as they did a month or so after getting them.
Not OP but I got a pair of Clark's in 2010 that I still wear. Granted they are sandals, but of anything that is even more impressive, I used to go through sandals once a season.
And don't get me started on the poor state of common flipflop
oh excuse my french but fuck-an-a clarks are amazing. The pair I bought mine at (which actually still somehow work) was from a mall which is now demolished and has since turned into a condominium with a park.
Yes, the store left, the mall was abandoned, it got leveled, a new building was placed there and that was a few years ago. I still have the damn sandals. I wore them yesterday.
I tried moving on from them around 2012 using a pair of sandals from DSW and those went to tatters so I went into my closet and brought the old clarks back out and now years later they still work.
I should go and hunt out another pair.
There should be a review website with an incredibly high barrier to entry that is designed to make sure there's completely unsolicited reviews for products. Avoiding abuse and spam is definitely hand-waving here but that site would be great.
In those days, anywhere you found a Payless, you found kids who knew they were getting subpar shoes, but also knew to appreciate them because they were better than not getting new shoes at all.
Yup. That's exactly it. ( I wore my fair share of really crappy gym-class shoes, too.)
My FIL grew up dirt poor in a developing country and was frequently short of food and shoes to wear. His favorite things in America are fast food and Payless.
The point about both helping create the race to the bottom and also catering to those it leaves behind is, I think, an important and often overlooked one.
It's why Walmart is beloved in many of the small southern towns where I grew up. Sure it relentlessly exploited poor people elsewhere, but when you're poor yourself you can't help but be grateful for its low prices. And the belief that finally, finally someone is giving you the good end of that deal is terribly reassuring-- like maybe, for once, someone has your back.
This, of course, quickly assumes a political dimension. At the time conservatives (many of whom now back Trumpian protections, how times change) railed against the so-called "latte liberals" who supposedly fought Walmart from the comfort of their Mercedes-- not that anyone knew one of them personally, of course. And we, the rank and file, ate it up: we needed our cheap shoes, our cheap food, etc.
Now, as a liberal, when I hear people advocating for the breakup of Amazon or Google, I can't help but think back to how I would have felt about that when I was poorer, and when I didn't have the option of simply paying more for a better cause. I think I would have fought quite hard to keep my costs low, possibly to the point of voting against many of my other interests or beliefs. And especially in this era of polarization and high-stakes politics, I'm not sure it's a good idea to bet on people in general viewing that differently.
Very well said. I grew up in a below-average income family and this is exactly the viewpoint much of my extended family has. Yet they're just considered dumb for voting against their own interests and told they don't know what's good for them. Leftists have an odd way of convincing the very people they're trying to help by making fun of them; it hasn't worked out too well in the last 20 years and I don't expect it will going forward, either.
Well to be fair, they are in long-term stakes, wrong since these companies do end up impoverishing them. It's the problem that nobody without a backup and savings can think strategically, which is the paradox and issue with a predatory capitalist system .
>they are in long-term stakes, wrong since these companies do end up impoverishing them.
Are they though? Walmart has a negative impact on local small businesses but is it made up for by making goods available at prices they would otherwise not be leading to increased purchasing power?
As someone who grew up somewhere that local authorities were able to exert control over who did and didn't do business I am all for the "race to the bottom" that high volume, low margin big box stores represent.
> Walmart has a negative impact on local small businesses but is it made up for by making goods available at prices they would otherwise not be leading to increased purchasing power?
I'm not going to let you assert this without challenge.
First, durable goods are probably more expensive. For example, old lawnmowers lasted forever--WalMart ones die in a couple seasons.
Second, if a big box store wipes out local jobs that pay better, how much do prices have to be reduced to make up for that? People at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder spend and have a very high economic multiplier for how much their money drives other money. You don't have to lose many decent jobs in a 50,000 person town if most of them are 2x to 3x multipliers to really cripple the economy.
Third, is WalMart actually cheaper? Big box stores are really good at optimizing prices such that you get one great deal, but lose just a little on everything else. Normally, people put up with it because WalMart is the only choice or is a very convenient single stop.
>First, durable goods are probably more expensive. For example, old lawnmowers lasted forever--WalMart ones die in a couple seasons.
The local hardware store sells the same or close to the same value engineered Chinese lawnmower using a B&S clone engine and a steel deck. Walmart sells it for $119 when it's in season and more than that the rest of the time (I wanna say $140ish but I'm not sure). The hardware store can't touch the sale price. I bought a lawnmower last summer so I'm very aware of what durable they cost at the various outlets. Old lawnmowers lasted forever because all the ones that are left are high end aluminum deck models that never got ridden hard and put away wet (which is why I got one of them for free on Craigslist instead of buying one). You see a similiar pattern with other durable goods. The model of big box stores is low margin, high volume. They sell some stuff that's value engineered to within an inch of it's life (a lot of the stuff at Harbor Freight comes to mind) but they don't generally engage in bait and switch. If they sold goods that always failed to live up to what people were expecting they wouldn't still be in business.
>Second.
Walmart by itself is not going to wipe out your town. If Walmart and the other big box stores wipe out the town it's because there was no real economic activity going on there and everyone else was just rent seeking to sap the money from the few parties engaged in actual economic activity (like a plumber that jacks up his rates when working on rental income properties in a tourist town). Nothing of value is lost in that case. Complaining that Walmart kills a town is like complaining that more automation kills a factory town, sure it might be technically true but if increased efficiency is a threat to your economic survival then you were already dead and just didn't know it.
>Third, is WalMart actually cheaper?
It's very, very rare that I find that they're not. On groceries their selection seems to be pretty poor but you can get staples pretty damn cheap. I grew up in a shithole where you always had to watch what you were paying or you could get screwed hard so I tend to really watch trends. Big box stores tend to have the cheapest prices broadly. Small businesses will occasionally have great prices on a few things but prices in general will be higher. The value add of small businesses is flexibility and service that is only workable at their scale, not pricing.
These types of goods are still around today and priced the same when adjusting for inflation. Commercial and industrial buyers are their main market.
The best washing machines and vacuum cleaners aren't made by your brands you find in basic stores, they're at the specialty shops or catalogs. The Internet enables you to find out what they are and where to get them. They're just REALLY expensive compared to the cheap, Chinese-made alternatives today. But they're still around and the same real price as before. It's just that people race to the bottom and prioritize price first.
> is WalMart actually cheaper
This is pretty indisputable. I've done a lot of shopping there when I was poor and the differences are enormous, especially on boxed and cheap food staples.
It's very clear that Walmart drives down wages among suppliers. Workers clearly don't earn a ton of money. But do shoppers benefit? And are employees worse off relative to their alternatives? I would be surprised to find out that the first was the case, and curious-how-but-not-quite-surprised about the second.
Pointing out that people are making mistakes is not a way to win them over. The facts are not really relevant when trying to win someone over.
> predatory capitalist system
They don't like hearing this, either. The concept of hard work getting them ahead is one of the few things blue collar workers hold on to. (It is also not necessarily true as you state.)
Not sure how this got three downvotes without explanation, so if anyone would be kind enough to do so, that'd be much appreciated. Hacker News is supposed to be about discussion, not blind voting.
Not a downvoter, but I can explain. Based on previous discussions I've had here, "don't say the true thing" is viewed more as an effort to manipulate than as a good faith attempt to improve the effectiveness of an outreach.
This sums up well Trump's ascension: there are a lot of people who have real needs and real opinions, and whose votes count as much as someone's in California or New York. An environment where we insist on leaving those voices unheard is what enables someone to have extreme influence.
In many cases California and New York voters count much less than in smaller, more rural states. The senators from Wyoming represent about 300,000 people each. The senators in California represent nearly 19,000,000 each. And the The Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 capped the number in the House of Representatives. In this case, each California House member represents three times as many people as the House members in Wyoming. That's also one reason in recent presidential elections the electoral college which is based on the number of Senators and House of Representatives (plus 3 from DC) have won the race but lost the popular vote.
This is by design of course. The United States is a confederation of states...geographical balancing against population density was the Great Compromise. That people are surprised or shocked by this reveals how poor our civics education has become. https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/A_Great_...
Has become? People are more educated than ever, and mostly what you hear about is people complaining because the current system is unjust, not because they are "shocked " to learn it exists.
When you balance representation against population, the gulf is vast and only growing. This is a compromise that made sense in the 18th century, not the 21st. Ignore it at your peril.
> This is a compromise that made sense in the 18th century, not the 21st.
Exactly!
People act like our[0] Constitution is some inviolable, sacrosanct tome with words that must be revered and held close, unchanging and unchanged forever. Yet they seem to skip that we've modified the thing TWENTY EIGHT TIMES and that every Much Revered Framer(tm) anticipated that we'd not only change it as often as needed, we would very likely scrap the whole thing and do it again every few generations.
There is nothing, absolutely nothing, that mandates that the compromises, adjustments, and tweaks our nation's founders made must persist beyond tomorrow, except our own collective will to not bother with or to actively resist change. It's why I very much enjoy hearing at least one of the major parties actively talk about modification of the Electoral College or the makeup of the Supreme Court or how the legislative bodies of our nation operate. Maybe their ideas are good ones, maybe they're not, but the one thing we MUST NOT DO is shy away from a willingness to keep our country's governance current.
0 - By "our," I mean the collection of people who are citizens of the United States of America. Other nations can and do amend their nations' basic laws as they see fit.
From what I recall being taught it was to get the smaller states on board. These weren't necessarily slave states (e.g. Rhode Island).
It's been effective. If presidential elections were just driven by popular vote candidates would only campaign in the top population centers. Entire regions of the country would be ignored.
if you think politics are bad now, just imagine what they'd be like if you only had to pander to the interests of a few coastal metros and maybe also chicago & dallas. the interests of rural voters would lose out every time. just look at france to see how this can play out. ime things like water rights and public land mean nothing to urbanites but they impact us immensely.
Wyoming, and any state rounded up to 1 representative, is special. Aside from that the effect is minor.
There is an effect going the other direction that benefits California, and in fact is why there is a fight going on at the Supreme Court. Voters in those rural states are underrepresented due to non-citizens being counted to apportion the representatives. California has something like a couple dozen extra representatives from that.
Those voices are far from unheard. If anything, they've been the dominant political voices for the past 40 years. Sure, California and NYC's cultural output is the loudest voice in the country. But, politically speaking, they're largely ignored. Obviously ignored by Republicans, but the timid national Democratic leadership will also ignore them in their relentless centrism.
The political system makes it pretty easy to ignore the liberal coastal areas. Republicans benefit enormously from the unevenness of the Senate, House seat allocations, and the Electoral College. And then in the states they control, they put their finger on the scale via gerrymandering. Democrats can ignore the coasts too because who else are they going to vote for?
Though the greatest irony of all is that those rural and poor voters in the flyover states are also ignored in terms of their real needs. Their party tosses them cultural red meat regularly, but defunds the things they need: schools, roads, and various safety net programs which are often the only thing keeping the rural poor afloat.
This exactly. The folks claiming they are not represented are ironically over represented compared to city dwellers.
As long as Republican voters care more about abortion and gay marriage (and I guess transpeople using the bathroom now), they will not find economic solutions.
Are Democrats centrist? One of the things I learn the deeper I dig into how European countries are structured is that they’re more right leaning than American liberals assume. Let’s take Spain. If we adopted Spain’s tax structure, income taxes would go down by about a trillion dollars, while consumption taxes (paid for primarily by middle class and poor people), would go up two trillion dollars. Spain’s abortion laws are stricter than any southern state’s (elective abortion legal only up to 14 weeks). On gay marriage, Spain legalized it about 10 years before, but then the government tried to repeal that law a few years later. The constitutional court ruling permanently protecting gay marriage came just two years before the one in the US. The Spanish minimum wage works out to about 6 euro per hour. Like the US and almost all of Europe, many industries were privatized in the 1990s and 2000s, and unlike the US the passenger rail system is in the midst of privatization.
When I say "centrism", I'm thinking of it only as it relates to American politics with no external input. Comparing to other countries would be interesting, but I wouldn't even attempt it. Too many variations, even if limited to western nations. Your example of Spain shows the Democrats would comparatively be on the left on some issues, and on the right on others. Which, amusingly, would average out to centrism of a sort.
Spain isn't really the model Americans think about in terms of Europe though. That the country that was literally a Fascist dictatorship until the mid 1970s has some right wing views isn't exactly a surprise. It's Scandinavia that's the model the US left wants to copy.
Sweden has corporate taxes slightly lower than under Trump’s tax law. It collects 6% of revenue from corporate taxes, versus 9% in the US. It collects much less of it’s revenue from progressive income taxes than the US does, and much more from regressive consumption and payroll taxes. Sweden’s capital gains rate is only moderately higher than the US’s (flat 30% versus 23.8% in the top brackets). There are no inheritance taxes. In short, if the US adopted Sweden’s tax code, taxes on lower income and middle class people would go up much more than on rich people. (In fact, the tax burden in Sweden is almost perfectly flat.) Sweden has school choice including subsidization of religious schools. Elective abortion is legal only up to 18 weeks. Deregulation and privatization are extensive. For example, Stockholm’s metro system is operated under contract by for-profit corporations. Sweden has no ban on fully automatic weapons or high capacity magazines.
These are really fundamental differences, particularly in the area of taxes (and that’s true not just for Sweden and Spain, but most European countries). In Europe, there is an expansive welfare state with lots of benefits for the middle class, but the middle class are also the ones that pay for it, through high payroll and sales taxes. In the US, replacing sales taxes with a 20% VAT (the OECD average) would raise an extra $700 billion according to CBO estimates. Enough to pay for socialized health care and education. But nobody on the left is proposing that. Every proposal focuses on raising taxes on corporations and the rich to pay for middle class benefits.
gay marriage and liberal sentiment don't put food on the table. arms manufacturing and resource extraction does. things like gun ownership also take on a completely different meaning in places where weapons have a greater association with hunting & family tradition than to crime. these people are not stupid, they simply have a different reality than you do and our country will only become more divided until people begin to acknowledge this.
I never called them stupid. But I live in Kansas. I'm seeing this stuff on the front lines. The infrastructure is crumbling. The schools are starting to recover but are still in terrible shape after 8 years of Brownback and his ilk. The farmers are suffering, and many going out of business, due to Trump's tariffs. The state as a whole has trouble retaining young people due to much of the above.
The people here aren't stupid. Brownback's approval was in the mid 20's by the time he left. His policies are deeply unpopular. But, they keep voting for the party that originally pushed such disastrous policies, and is now trying to push them through again, despite popular opposition. I honestly don't understand it.
Perhaps they really do think guns are more important than the health of their community. Though even that makes no sense because state level Democrats are as pro-gun as the Republicans, and national level Democrats are zero threat.
I have no idea why you bundle up schools, roads, and social programs into "liberal sentiment". Guns may be loved, but they're not going to educate their children. And for many of the people in my rural district, what's putting food on the tables is the subsidized food programs and other aid offered. No arms manufacturing jobs and few resource extraction jobs here.
From an electoral perspective it's counterfactual: my family in the midwest have roughly 1.5x the electoral power I do. Historically speaking this has led two democrats in my lifetime to win the popular vote but lose the presidential election. So I don't think there's an issue with those voices being unheard in elections-- quite the opposite in fact.
On the other hand, I see where you're coming from. The loci of money and power in the United States speak loudly and listen poorly to the half of us that see stars at night. I think this has been to conservatives' advantage, although that seems to have more to do with preexisting cultural affinity than shared policy goals.
Does winning the popular vote mean anything under the current system? It's not hard to assume that many people would vote very differently if the electoral college wasn't involved. For instance, left-leaning people might vote more often in red states, and right-leaning voters in blue states would do the same.
In fact, states aren't even required to put the presidential on the ballot at all. States are allowed to choose their electors by any method the state legislature decides on.
Don't forget- there's 4 million Americans who are ineligible to vote for president due to the fact that they live in territories, not states (and DC since 1961).
Only inside of individual districts-- eg, a senate race is a statewide popular contest. There are no federal popular vote contests in the US (although there is some momentum towards reform in that regard).
I'm not sure that the average voter really considers the electoral college today. Voter comprehension of it has historically been very low, at least. But you're right that many non-swing-state voters stay home after (correctly) figuring out that their votes are meaningless.
> My middle school was a cruel place where girls would sneak up behind you and grab the collar of your shirt to see if it was a “real” Esprit, or if you’d just sewed a tag onto the pocket of a knock-off (which I totally did).
I'm male, and an equivalent of this would happen in high school in my country as well (late '90s). What is it about human society that causes others to try to bully someone on the basis of their consumption choices? Kids have been brand-aware for generations now, but to use these arbitrary perceptions of brand value to shame someone who doesn't have access to them, is beyond grotesque.
I'm starting to notice that I need to replace shoes at a rate of nearly once every year. Granted, I buy cheap sneakers from Marshalls/TJ Maxx and spend 4 winter months walking across semi-icy rock salt laden streets.
Part of me wants to buy walking shoes over the $75 mark to figure out if they last longer, but the other part feels that at that price point, they aren't designed to last any longer than the sub-$50 brands.
The end of Payless is just another private equity story, and poor kids will just get a smaller variety of shitty shoes from WalMart, TJMaxx, or Dollar General.
The majority of us get screwed in other ways, as we pay more for increasingly lousy footwear.