"Based on this grid, what is the most Democratic voting group in America? It’s voters with postgraduate degrees but lower-to-middle household incomes of $30K to $60K per year."
Setting aside OP's right wing nonsense, I (as a lefty woman) can see it but from another perspective: as white collar work becomes harder to get, that will drive wages down and make work conditions worse. (supply and demand). So if/when they have children, the odds of them making enough to cover daycare will go down.
Additionally, as working becomes worse and worse, anyone who has an exit path will take it. We'll see an uptick in the lumpenproletariat in the Marxist sense of the term (I'm not a Marxist, but the term is useful) as well. Straight and bisexual women have more of an ability to opt out of capitalism directly than straight and bisexual men do in broad generalities.
Additionally, a lot of the resistance to a more traditional family setup on the women's part is because it places us in a precarious situation where, if the person you depend on financially is abusive, you're screwed. If work gets to a point where most employment involves abusive conditions, it's a better deal to chain yourself to a potentially abusive husband than a potentially abusive employer. The legal system is greatly biased towards an employer and the odds of help or redress are low. If you have to pick an abusive situation, pick the one where it's concentrated in one person and you can poison him if you need out. Your husband can have a 'heart attack'. Much harder to pull that off against a megacorp.
In short: the opt out/traditional path is likely to become a better deal, and selfishness will always win.
Are those statistics I provided invalid? Is it not the case there's an entire (ascendant in some spots) political party based upon this phenomenon of the highly-credentialed yet downwardly mobile?
If, as you call it, the "OP's right wing nonsense" is wrong, where are the competing statistics? Where is the competing claim?
It's very clear, whether or not people want to admit it, that a large percentage of jobs in modern society are provided for and sustained by the government or its proxies. People would not pay for these things voluntarily, and the degrees backing them are knowledge work replaceable by AI. No one needs another policy paper.
We can apply this logic liberally to much routine art or marketing production, HR, "news" (almost all of it unoriginal and syndicated), support services work, routine charting and BI functions.
Indeed, it can be applied entirely to the wide swath of "bullshit jobs" [1] in the economy. When that term originated, people laughed because everyone knew it was true. Now people are frightened because AI will always be better and cost effective at bullshit. A fitting repose.
When I say 'right wing nonsense', I mean nonsense that is right wing, not that right wing inherently = nonsense. I thought that was worth clarifying. I'm left, sort of, in the sense that I'm more left than right, but a lot of my views are so far outside the Overton Window that categorizing them in either way is a futile endeavor. (And there are many instances where I 'cross the aisle' in my opinions: guns and administrative legal theory are two.)
It isn't the statistics that people object to when you present your case: it's the framing and the ideological assumptions behind them.
In writing your post(s) as you did, you embedded the following assumptions along with your statistics:
1.) That the government is 'acting in the place of a father', indicating that there is a specific natural place for a man in the world as it relates to his spouse and children, specifically that he should wield authority and care along the line of traditional roles (versus using the phrasing 'acting in the place of a parent' or 'acting in loco parentis', which would indicate a different critique centering around the amount of external authority in people's lives without prescribing how people should live otherwise).
2.) That we should organize society around/value what people willingly pay for. I disagree. Particularly in modern America, where we've all been raised from birth to be selfish babies and assholes with no ability to look beyond three months down the road (to be generous). Half of this country would throw a tantrum if you asked them to contribute to the roads they drive on. They're definitely not going to pay for cancer research, or to create any strategic resource reserves, if it means they have $5 less now.
3.) That 'bullshit jobs' are more likely to be taken by women and that as a class they're more likely to be impacted by AI than men. I don't agree with that. I think that white collar bullshit jobs are held pretty equally by both sexes: the devastation of the IT/tech job market + all the conversation around what AI means for tech suggests that white collar men are far from immune. In my opinion, pretending that women are going to be more impacted is a cope. They're going to be equally impacted, but women have more of an exit strategy. I also think they've got better non-white collar options, honestly. Pink-collar is going to be more resistant to robotics and AI than blue-collar. I'm betting that construction labor can be automated before hair dressers, and the fastest growing job sector is healthcare services. Or consider in home childcare and jobs like elementary teachers. We'll let robots drive our trucks, but letting them take care of our 4 year olds is going to be a much bigger hurdle.
Overall, I think your case would be stronger and better received if you dropped the gendered element. Discussions happen in a particular context (the Internet's attempts at collapsing that aside), and adding the gender aspect aligns you in the audience's mind with certain positions (just as I did deliberately when I described myself as a leftist woman - I did that specifically so I could present that I agree that women are likely to exit white collar work without aligning myself with other gender positions which in turn makes it easier to discuss the idea on its own merits, or when I started this message by walking back some of my flippancy wrt your message because I appreciate that you took the time to respond and are open to a conversation and therefore am also stepping forward to try to find common ground and reciprocate that I'd like a productive conversation).
The tl;dr is it's not the statistics that are putting people off and earning you downvotes, it's the rhetoric and presentation. Knowing your audience and the context in which an argument is being made is crucial. Like... if I posted this comment in any kind of sapphic group, I'd be run out with pitchforks.
I am indifferent to whether or not my message is well-received. It is true.
And also because the people making the arguments for why they should force people to pay for their jobs are indifferent as well. I take joy in knowing that reality is reality, men are men, women are women, and reality is objective and indifferent to subjective voting patterns.
You can simply overlay that Nate Silver chart in the other post with DSA voting and "bullshit jobs." It's the same exact people.
I would like to also point out it was the "Occupy Wall Street" left who most championed criticism of said bullshit jobs. A true irony.
The one that puts government in the place of a father?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michelletravis/2026/01/29/women...
Edit:
"Based on this grid, what is the most Democratic voting group in America? It’s voters with postgraduate degrees but lower-to-middle household incomes of $30K to $60K per year."
https://www.natesilver.net/p/the-dsa-sweet-spot-highly-educa...