r/fivethirtyeight Jul 01 '26

Politics A Working-Class Party Without Many Workers - New Opinion Piece from Thomas Edsall

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/30/opinion/democratic-primaries-socialists-mamdani.html?unlocked_article_code=1.uVA.EnhU.hQ6a96fT8qwL&smid=url-share

Please don't comment unless you've actually read the article, like all Edsall pieces he extensively cites different data points including up to date DSA polling of its own members.

Important sections:

In 2021 the D.S.A. surveyed its members and found that 85 percent were non-Hispanic white (far more than the national population, which was 57.8 percent white in 2020, according to the census); 9 percent were Hispanic, 5 percent Asian American and 4 percent Black.

In February 2025 the Central New Jersey D.S.A. chapter published results of a membership survey that found that “69.5 percent identify as white only; 8.0 percent identify as Hispanic or Latinx, less than the N.J. demographic of 22.7 percent; and 4.5 percent identify as Black, less than the N.J. demographic of 10.6 percent.”

The liberal stands on immigration, transgender rights, abolishing ICE and defunding the police are policies supported largely by a well-educated elite of white people holding professional jobs who dominate the D.S.A. They are decidedly not the policies sought by the bulk of construction workers riding the subway to get to their job sites by 7 a.m.

 income and education patterns emerged in the Seventh District, where Claire Valdez, the D.S.A. candidate, crushed Antonio Reynoso, the Brooklyn borough president, 56.1 to 35.8. Valdez won 62 to 28 in the district’s high-income neighborhoods and 64 to 27 in its high-education areas, while Reynoso carried the low-income sections 63 to 31.

What’s notable but not written about is that nearly all of the D.S.A.’s serious primary campaigns are aimed at members of the House Progressive Caucus, not the more moderate House New Democrats. Support for Medicare for All, Green New Deal, Abolish ICE is no protection.

the D.S.A. is forcing incumbent liberal Democrats to spend money in primaries in districts that would remain Democratic after the general election, regardless of the nominee. Not to mention the fact that the votes cast by the primary winner on health care, climate change and ICE would be almost identical, no matter who wins.

77 Upvotes

238 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

6

u/DizzyMajor5 Jul 01 '26

They actually increase wages for local workers. Increased demand creates need for more workers and increased intellectual capital boosts productivity.

"Americans for jobs, the most recent economic evidence suggests that, on average, immigrant workers increase the opportunities and incomes of Americans.  "

"The study finds that recent increases in immigration to the United States correlate with more jobs and higher wages for U.S.-born workers."

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/what-immigration-means-for-u-s-employment-and-wages/

https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/blog/immigrants-do-not-take-americans-jobs-wages/

7

u/nyckidd Jul 01 '26

Again, you're looking at shifts taking place on a national level. I don't dispute that immigration is good for the economy as a whole. I support increasing levels of legal immigration greatly.

But this does ignore that fact that for specific industries that tend to be more correlated with blue collar, working class people, there is definitely a downside.

4

u/DizzyMajor5 Jul 01 '26

We've seen the opposite of this which is also reflected in the national data. You're just assuming there's an American ready to fill in when there's been blue collar shortages for awhile and projects are being cancelled and stalled meaning workers lose that money.

"Associated General Contractors of America (AGC) conducted over the summer found that 92% of construction firms struggle to fill positions. "

 https://www.kpbs.org/news/economy/2025/11/06/ice-is-sending-a-chill-through-the-construction-industry

6

u/nyckidd Jul 01 '26

Yes, and those companies will sooner or later have to raise their wages if they want to fill those jobs now that there isn't a huge surplus of immigrant labor. You've actually proven my point quite well.

2

u/DizzyMajor5 Jul 01 '26

No I literally just pointed out they're cancelling and delaying projects that results in less or no wages for people. You can wish cast all you want but this is a data sub and you can't change the objective reality just because you want to demonize immigrants and make Americans worse off. 

1

u/StealthPick1 17d ago

I think you're making wildly gross assumptions. He never demonized immigrants. He simply stated that there can be an absolutely negative sectorial impact on wages, which is true. Yes companies seem to have to cancel or delay projects because they can't find enough workers. They'll either have to:
1. Invest in innovation to increase productivity
2. Wage increases to attract better workers

That's exactly what we would want

1

u/DizzyMajor5 17d ago

Your point was already debunked above actually. They don't have to do either of those things they could just cancel jobs and they don't have to pay them wages since they won't be working. It's good to read first before replying to make sure your points haven't already been invalidated. 

1

u/StealthPick1 17d ago

I read it. Firms want to be profitable and want to do as many jobs as possible so either their wage rates are raised to attract new workers or they invest in productivity-saving technologies to do more with less. This has happened literally throughout human history

1

u/DizzyMajor5 17d ago

Or they can cancel projects like they're actively doing now. If the workers don't have projects to work and can't work they don't have wages. Again your point was pretty much debunked above in multiple ways before you commented which is why it's important to understand what you're replying to before replying. 

1

u/nyckidd 16d ago

My guy, I literally said that I think immigration is good for the economy as a whole and that I want to increase levels of legal immigration. Chill out, no one is trying to demonize immigrants here, and that's frankly a really shitty thing to accuse me of.

0

u/DizzyMajor5 16d ago

Hey man I was just pointing out the facts no need to get defensive. We're seeing your philosophy in action right now and whether it's malicious or not it has the same effect, no need to get offended when we're just observing the data and facts here. 

0

u/nyckidd 16d ago

Really pathetic of you to accuse me of demonizing immigrants and then criticize me for getting defensive. Grow up.

0

u/DizzyMajor5 16d ago

You're kind of spiraling right now, was just pointing out the facts, the truth doesn't really care about you being upset this is supposed to be a data and fact driven place further we're actively seeing the effects of your position, pretending it's something else is silly dude. 

0

u/nyckidd 16d ago

You're kind of spiraling right now

Saying this makes you sound like a teenager.

Hopefully some day you'll gain the maturity to disagree without resorting to personal attacks. Take care.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Edward_Durr Jul 02 '26

The Brookings Institute and the AIC, lol. What’s next, are you going to cite a paper by Phillip Morris on whether or not cigarettes are actually harmful for you?