Ummm... that is everywhere in the world. There is a reason the Federal Reserve reserves gold along with every government in the world. People who get burned on gold get burned because they buy while the market is "booming." This is actually extremely uncommon. During the recession you'd have been a very happy man if you kept your wealth in gold.
There are certainly investments which grow faster buy they also carry a lot more risk.
All that said there is another reason people get burned with both dollars and gold on a regular basis. Counterfeiting. Counterfeiting is mathematically proven to be impossible with bitcoin and that is why it has innate value. That is also why the banks are trying to build systems based on its technology. All this "I can't hold it in my hand" people are just luddites.
Or you can not short the stock, you can buy options instead. Those options will be incredibly cheap because the market is most likely to go the other way. Using this strategy you can be wrong many times and get a big payoff that time you are right.
This is how you exploit the market. If looking at this history and financials of the company the layoff looks like desperate flailing before the fall you can target your strategy more specifically and have a much larger yacht.
"We're only crowded because we've crowded ourselves into cities. Try taking a train trip across the United States, or Europe or Asia or anywhere in the world. Ninety-nine percent of the land is not used..."
This sounds like the perspective of a city dweller. In the US at least, unless you are going out west and talking about desert the land is actually much more populated than even 20 years ago. More and more it's becoming like most state/national parks, a thin screen of trees creating the illusion of being out in the wilds while the next camper is just on the other side with no real private space.
The purpose of the vice president is to be the shoe in on the next round of elections if the presidency goes even reasonably well. If you think chairing the senate only allows you to break ties you are sorely mistaken. You'd be amazed what being the lord of procedure allows.
It's hard for anyone within the party to beat out an 8 year running VP for the nomination and hard for the other party to beat them for the presidency. All else being equal the only thing more challenging is beating the actual sitting president.
They might have stopped that particular scheme with OEMs but it hasn't hurt them much. They've only lost 6% of their marketshare which is the combined marketshare of Linux/MacOS.
Chromebooks, iPads, Android devices... these are mobile devices and are a completely different market. There is a reason many people have a phone, tablet, laptop, and a desktop. Since laptops and desktops differ only in hardware flexibility and performance and can almost do the same things these days they are becoming comparable. Mobile devices on the other hand do not run with full desktop capabilities and interface. Most people have both a desktop device (laptop/desktop) and a mobile device (tablet/phone).
As for Linux distributions and Macs, certainly, they are viable in many ways but MacOS only has 4.9% of the market and linux 2%. Ultimately yes, it does come down to market share. It also comes down to the fact that for almost the entire market changing operating system after purchase is not a viable option for their technical skill level and learning a new operating system is not a small undertaking.
Imagine a world in which Oxford has control of the English language and makes sweeping changes, say causing every word of English to be heard by the NSA. In this world switching would mean losing all knowledge of English. Your argument is akin to suggesting they no longer have control of the market because people have morse code, french, and german as viable choices. Morse code is a different sort of communication mechanism. One could switch to French (4% of speakers) or German (2%) but then you couldn't communicate with the 90% that are using English and if publishers don't choose to print their books in your language which only 2-4% of people understand you can't read them, the same for movies, music, software interfaces, road signs, and of course you are stuck with this choice if your place of employment opts for any of those things that are English only.
The simple reality is that so long as Microsoft has a monopoly, people making a product or service that integrates with a computer or software can target that platform and reach 90+% of the market. When it costs just as much to target each other platform many can and do choose not to target the other 6%. You can make something web-based and possibly hit 100% and the mobile market as well but that requires a browser to access and Microsoft is shoving their browser down everyone's throat.
If they succeed suddenly they have the power they used to have with IE, the power to introduce new and incompatible features and make all other browsers look inferior simply because they have different features than what people are used to. Suddenly web content starts to have the same problem it used to have when MS had a browser monopoly a bunch of MS browser only targeted content. It would roll back advancements in open technology to the terrible state they were in during the 90's. In many workplaces people are still locked in to inferior IE only content due to mentalities and carry over solutions from those dark times. Nobody wants that... except Microsoft.
Google and Facebook are pretty sleazy but they don't have a monopoly. Idiots buy into their shit eyes wide open.
Microsoft does have a monopoly and is actively trying to use it to dupe people into adopting their new products.
Google and Facebook have set up a stand that says in big bold blinking letters. "Free stonecones with ass raping!" When questioned they say that everyone has to be ass raped in order to make free snow cones possible. But that isn't the point, the point is, you could simply choose to buy a snow cone at any of the other snow cone stands.
Microsoft is setting up a booth in the doorway of the only grocery store in town with a sign saying "Free health checkup! You'll live longer using our quick and fun service." You then have to solve a rubiks cube to indicate you don't want the service and just want to go in the store, anything else, including putting the cube down results in a 6'5 greasy convict grabbing you and ass raping you.
Google doesn't have a monopoly on the desktop... hasn't been convicted of illegally using that monopoly to give a market advantage vs competitors including their browser. That would be apples to apples if Microsoft were advertising Edge on bing.
Yet again, Microsoft is up to their old tricks. Sleezily shoving windows 10 down the throats of users and now slimy tricks to get people to install their new browser.
Are you aware you are replying to a comment pointing out that both Democrats and Republicans are the problem? Agreement in a chastising tone of correction is a bit odd.
What is this some sort of group prejudice being encouraged in a Slashdot headline? I'm sorry if I'm mistaken but has the ring of looking down on someone to me. Perhaps the tongue in cheek remark of someone from the city who thinks farmers are uneducated woodchucks.
It's been more than 15 years since I lived there but I grew up in the county seat of a county primarily based in agriculture. It is pretty typical for a farmer to have a masters or higher and rare for them to have no degree. Most farms these days are multi-million dollar a year operations with highly educated staff required to operate them. Forget your images of Green Acres. Your hot shot city executive doesn't just lack the grit, he likely isn't intelligent enough and certainly isn't well enough educated to be a farmer. Depending on which portions of agriculture you specialize in, it's best thought of as either an engineering or science field and solidly in the realm of STEM. More than that, not only is there a great deal of school required but farmers are typically multi-generation and have as much or more hands on experience when they start school as many STEM workers have toward the end of their career.
This one is on the Clintons. If Republicrat was meant to be the whole mix of D and R you've got it about right. It's all one party that uses two flavors of spin to screw 99.99% of us.
UBI is not a valid solution as a charity or unemployment insurance mechanism like this article implies and $30k/year is not a "comfortable" living. The reason for UBI is that we are automating and exporting away jobs. Very soon there won't be new jobs.
At the bottom end all the way through the upper middle of tech, UBI is to enable a drop in domestic wages so that our workforce can better compete globally. This won't happen immediately and not all wages will drop at all. Especially in the middle class you'll actually see a big jump in disposable income that can be invested.
The big gain of UBI is it enables a shift of our economy from being labor based to investment based.
Nah, it doesn't work as a tax based strategy at all. The income should be what we are looking at for a minimum wage, which is $15/hr * 40hr or $31,200. That should come from the fed tap and be the new standard deduction amount.
This of course should only apply to native born citizens and their descendants to prevent growing out of control and target the benefit primarily at those who built and worked toward the business and technical foundation that obsoletes their children, grandchildren, etc. This isn't just a safety net. The primary purpose is allow a growing pool of the working class US citizens to enter the investment class by having disposable income. As massively populated third world labor forces are enabled by technology we created they reduce domestic gains for the people who did the creating this benefits the shareholder but not the worker. We need to offset that by making more of the shares of these new globalized companies be owned by the current working class.
I've made McDonalds money, I've made small town 30-40k money, I've made 60-70k money, and I've made a solid six figures. Trust me, there is no point short of well into six figures where a person doesn't feel economic pressure and the need for more and at 70k you'd still count an additional 10-15k from a job as massively significant. People are definitely still going to want to work.
"It's quite difficult to form accurate hypotheses about what would happen if you removed the minimum wage and introduced UBI. Some jobs that tend to be low paying but enjoyed by the people that do them (hair dresser seems like a good example here) might become cheaper, but anything menial would suddenly find the bargaining position between employer and employee dramatically changed."
"The person in the menial job is no longer going to be out on the street if they don't work, they'll simply have less money available for luxuries."
Which is why all the high paying jobs sit empty, right? No, people always want more. Greed is one human attribute you can always count on. Yes people will have a stronger bargaining position relative to their employers (and it is about time) but however much the basic income is, people will always want more. They might have a stronger bargaining position and companies will be more flush with the increased capital floating around but how much more people need is a much lower figure. Some menial jobs might tend to fall to those who don't qualify (anyone who isn't a native born citizen now or isn't descended from a native born citizen of today, new citizens and/or bloodlines wouldn't qualify). But thousands if not millions of jobs would return to the US that people are willing to perform like tech and manufacturing jobs.
"We already have a progressive federal income tax, so it would be easy to adjust the brackets to ensure only the needy would receive an increased net income from UBI."
That does touch on the major problems here. First, that it's coming from tax revenues instead of new funds produced by the federal reserve. Second that this should be some sort of charity measure for the needy. The amount is simple, $15/hr * 40 hrs, the same amount we reasonably determine should be the minimum wage and that also becomes the new standard deduction and that is the only program that occurs me off hand you'd actually eliminate with this. Many others would simply become obsolete as nobody would qualify anymore. But since this would only apply to current US citizens and their descendants you wouldn't want to eliminate programs that those other might need in a few generations.
This would be a dramatic economic boon for the US. Workers would be empowered because their jobs would only be supplemental income which gives them a much stronger bargaining position with employers. That wouldn't be all bad for employers though as they could bring many jobs back from overseas getting reduced labor rates without third world quality. This would cut our imports and increase our exports. Additionally, there would be more capital floating around in private hands to buy those goods and services. More people would have disposable income for both domestic and foreign investment instead of having to spend every dime that comes in.
We don't eliminate most programs we eliminate qualification for those programs. This article is ridiculous, a basic income would be paid from the fed tap not tax funds. The amount is simple, if we are looking at 40hr @ $15/hr as a minimum wage that is the figure we need for a basic income and the minimum wage we do eliminate. That amount becomes the new standard tax deduction.
That alone would enable taking thousands jobs back from illegal and imported workers, US workers who are only looking at jobs to provide supplemental income can suddenly undercut them. This hits tech, this hits manufacturing. Instead of a burden you have a boom for businesses while at the same time shifting more power to workers who are in a more reasonable bargaining position. This helps restore the traditional family allowing a worker to actually stay home and take care of children in a modern economy where costs have raised in response to dual incomes to require dual incomes.
There should of course be a limitation. Only those who are citizens at the time this enacted and their descendants should draw the basic income.
"Basically what they are really saying, is their needs, their psychopathic ego, demands poor people (a capital fabrication) they can exploit to feed the insatiable ego of psychopaths. The demand to have more, they must have more, the demand to be able to order other people about, not just some but as many as possible, in fact they fight amongst themselves for total control and absolute power over everyone else. "
Well of course it is. But the bottom line is that automation and globalization mean the rich people in the United States are moving on from using poor people here to exploiting the far more plentiful and poor people in Asia. Either we establish a system for making sure our relatively tiny relative working class lives off the benefits or we will soon be left in impoverished dust. This is fair enough, we built the business and technological foundation that is and will be utilized by the world.
This should not be funded from taxes it should be funded right from the fed tap instead of pumping those funds out to banks.
The reasons you gave for your assertion are more assertions.
"My interests are even more counter to 99.99% of us than those of the establishment. So are yours, and anyone else's for that matter."
Sorry, that isn't true of me and the vast majority of people. We don't all agree on everything but there is actually a great deal of overlap. A candidate does not need be oneself personified.
'"The establishment" represents the best compromise we can come up with.'
Far from it. The establishment represents the wealthy. 99.99% of us overlap in that we aren't members of those groups and it is never in our interest to support them when those interests overlap with ours. The establishment is a single party with two flavors of spin, these factions are carefully designed to fracture and divide us into "us" and "them" categories on issues we will never agree on, we feel very strongly about, and keep us distracted from class power division in this country.
I think you'll find there are more than a few in this nation who do not believe an elite ruling class based on economic status such as is found in the senate is appropriate in the modern world of widespread education. We are no longer interested in a government that is about keeping the populace content enough not to revolt so the upper ranks can carry on as usual. Especially in a global and automated economy where the interests of the wealthy are less and less tied to the working population whose backs they've ridden on for so long.
Slashdot Mirror
Ummm... that is everywhere in the world. There is a reason the Federal Reserve reserves gold along with every government in the world. People who get burned on gold get burned because they buy while the market is "booming." This is actually extremely uncommon. During the recession you'd have been a very happy man if you kept your wealth in gold.
There are certainly investments which grow faster buy they also carry a lot more risk.
All that said there is another reason people get burned with both dollars and gold on a regular basis. Counterfeiting. Counterfeiting is mathematically proven to be impossible with bitcoin and that is why it has innate value. That is also why the banks are trying to build systems based on its technology. All this "I can't hold it in my hand" people are just luddites.
Or you can not short the stock, you can buy options instead. Those options will be incredibly cheap because the market is most likely to go the other way. Using this strategy you can be wrong many times and get a big payoff that time you are right.
This is how you exploit the market. If looking at this history and financials of the company the layoff looks like desperate flailing before the fall you can target your strategy more specifically and have a much larger yacht.
"We're only crowded because we've crowded ourselves into cities. Try taking a train trip across the United States, or Europe or Asia or anywhere in the world. Ninety-nine percent of the land is not used..."
This sounds like the perspective of a city dweller. In the US at least, unless you are going out west and talking about desert the land is actually much more populated than even 20 years ago. More and more it's becoming like most state/national parks, a thin screen of trees creating the illusion of being out in the wilds while the next camper is just on the other side with no real private space.
"The legitimate reason for saying that is that Trump is modeling much of his campaign on the campaign of Hitler."
Exactly. I don't believe Hitler was sincere any more than I believe Trump. Both exploited flaws in human nature.
"One important thing to note is that despite the official recovery from a recession, most of the population isn't seeing much recovery."
Yes. We are seeing a new shiny bubble.
Now substitute "The Jews" for "The Other"
The purpose of the vice president is to be the shoe in on the next round of elections if the presidency goes even reasonably well. If you think chairing the senate only allows you to break ties you are sorely mistaken. You'd be amazed what being the lord of procedure allows.
It's hard for anyone within the party to beat out an 8 year running VP for the nomination and hard for the other party to beat them for the presidency. All else being equal the only thing more challenging is beating the actual sitting president.
"His arrest in Poland, however, demonstrates again that cybercriminals can run, but they cannot hide from justice."
What does justice have to do with it?
https://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10&qpcustomd=0
They might have stopped that particular scheme with OEMs but it hasn't hurt them much. They've only lost 6% of their marketshare which is the combined marketshare of Linux/MacOS.
Actually the desktop market is a massive market.
https://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10&qpcustomd=0
IOS and Android run in the mobile space, not the desktop space.
https://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10&qpcustomd=0
Chromebooks, iPads, Android devices... these are mobile devices and are a completely different market. There is a reason many people have a phone, tablet, laptop, and a desktop. Since laptops and desktops differ only in hardware flexibility and performance and can almost do the same things these days they are becoming comparable. Mobile devices on the other hand do not run with full desktop capabilities and interface. Most people have both a desktop device (laptop/desktop) and a mobile device (tablet/phone).
As for Linux distributions and Macs, certainly, they are viable in many ways but MacOS only has 4.9% of the market and linux 2%. Ultimately yes, it does come down to market share. It also comes down to the fact that for almost the entire market changing operating system after purchase is not a viable option for their technical skill level and learning a new operating system is not a small undertaking.
Imagine a world in which Oxford has control of the English language and makes sweeping changes, say causing every word of English to be heard by the NSA. In this world switching would mean losing all knowledge of English. Your argument is akin to suggesting they no longer have control of the market because people have morse code, french, and german as viable choices. Morse code is a different sort of communication mechanism. One could switch to French (4% of speakers) or German (2%) but then you couldn't communicate with the 90% that are using English and if publishers don't choose to print their books in your language which only 2-4% of people understand you can't read them, the same for movies, music, software interfaces, road signs, and of course you are stuck with this choice if your place of employment opts for any of those things that are English only.
The simple reality is that so long as Microsoft has a monopoly, people making a product or service that integrates with a computer or software can target that platform and reach 90+% of the market. When it costs just as much to target each other platform many can and do choose not to target the other 6%. You can make something web-based and possibly hit 100% and the mobile market as well but that requires a browser to access and Microsoft is shoving their browser down everyone's throat.
If they succeed suddenly they have the power they used to have with IE, the power to introduce new and incompatible features and make all other browsers look inferior simply because they have different features than what people are used to. Suddenly web content starts to have the same problem it used to have when MS had a browser monopoly a bunch of MS browser only targeted content. It would roll back advancements in open technology to the terrible state they were in during the 90's. In many workplaces people are still locked in to inferior IE only content due to mentalities and carry over solutions from those dark times. Nobody wants that... except Microsoft.
Google and Facebook are pretty sleazy but they don't have a monopoly. Idiots buy into their shit eyes wide open.
Microsoft does have a monopoly and is actively trying to use it to dupe people into adopting their new products.
Google and Facebook have set up a stand that says in big bold blinking letters. "Free stonecones with ass raping!" When questioned they say that everyone has to be ass raped in order to make free snow cones possible. But that isn't the point, the point is, you could simply choose to buy a snow cone at any of the other snow cone stands.
Microsoft is setting up a booth in the doorway of the only grocery store in town with a sign saying "Free health checkup! You'll live longer using our quick and fun service." You then have to solve a rubiks cube to indicate you don't want the service and just want to go in the store, anything else, including putting the cube down results in a 6'5 greasy convict grabbing you and ass raping you.
See the difference?
Google doesn't have a monopoly on the desktop... hasn't been convicted of illegally using that monopoly to give a market advantage vs competitors including their browser. That would be apples to apples if Microsoft were advertising Edge on bing.
Yet again, Microsoft is up to their old tricks. Sleezily shoving windows 10 down the throats of users and now slimy tricks to get people to install their new browser.
"ie Democrats AND Republicans."
Are you aware you are replying to a comment pointing out that both Democrats and Republicans are the problem? Agreement in a chastising tone of correction is a bit odd.
What is this some sort of group prejudice being encouraged in a Slashdot headline? I'm sorry if I'm mistaken but has the ring of looking down on someone to me. Perhaps the tongue in cheek remark of someone from the city who thinks farmers are uneducated woodchucks.
It's been more than 15 years since I lived there but I grew up in the county seat of a county primarily based in agriculture. It is pretty typical for a farmer to have a masters or higher and rare for them to have no degree. Most farms these days are multi-million dollar a year operations with highly educated staff required to operate them. Forget your images of Green Acres. Your hot shot city executive doesn't just lack the grit, he likely isn't intelligent enough and certainly isn't well enough educated to be a farmer. Depending on which portions of agriculture you specialize in, it's best thought of as either an engineering or science field and solidly in the realm of STEM. More than that, not only is there a great deal of school required but farmers are typically multi-generation and have as much or more hands on experience when they start school as many STEM workers have toward the end of their career.
This one is on the Clintons. If Republicrat was meant to be the whole mix of D and R you've got it about right. It's all one party that uses two flavors of spin to screw 99.99% of us.
UBI is not a valid solution as a charity or unemployment insurance mechanism like this article implies and $30k/year is not a "comfortable" living. The reason for UBI is that we are automating and exporting away jobs. Very soon there won't be new jobs.
At the bottom end all the way through the upper middle of tech, UBI is to enable a drop in domestic wages so that our workforce can better compete globally. This won't happen immediately and not all wages will drop at all. Especially in the middle class you'll actually see a big jump in disposable income that can be invested.
The big gain of UBI is it enables a shift of our economy from being labor based to investment based.
Nah, it doesn't work as a tax based strategy at all. The income should be what we are looking at for a minimum wage, which is $15/hr * 40hr or $31,200. That should come from the fed tap and be the new standard deduction amount.
This of course should only apply to native born citizens and their descendants to prevent growing out of control and target the benefit primarily at those who built and worked toward the business and technical foundation that obsoletes their children, grandchildren, etc. This isn't just a safety net. The primary purpose is allow a growing pool of the working class US citizens to enter the investment class by having disposable income. As massively populated third world labor forces are enabled by technology we created they reduce domestic gains for the people who did the creating this benefits the shareholder but not the worker. We need to offset that by making more of the shares of these new globalized companies be owned by the current working class.
I've made McDonalds money, I've made small town 30-40k money, I've made 60-70k money, and I've made a solid six figures. Trust me, there is no point short of well into six figures where a person doesn't feel economic pressure and the need for more and at 70k you'd still count an additional 10-15k from a job as massively significant. People are definitely still going to want to work.
"It's quite difficult to form accurate hypotheses about what would happen if you removed the minimum wage and introduced UBI. Some jobs that tend to be low paying but enjoyed by the people that do them (hair dresser seems like a good example here) might become cheaper, but anything menial would suddenly find the bargaining position between employer and employee dramatically changed."
"The person in the menial job is no longer going to be out on the street if they don't work, they'll simply have less money available for luxuries."
Which is why all the high paying jobs sit empty, right? No, people always want more. Greed is one human attribute you can always count on. Yes people will have a stronger bargaining position relative to their employers (and it is about time) but however much the basic income is, people will always want more. They might have a stronger bargaining position and companies will be more flush with the increased capital floating around but how much more people need is a much lower figure. Some menial jobs might tend to fall to those who don't qualify (anyone who isn't a native born citizen now or isn't descended from a native born citizen of today, new citizens and/or bloodlines wouldn't qualify). But thousands if not millions of jobs would return to the US that people are willing to perform like tech and manufacturing jobs.
"We already have a progressive federal income tax, so it would be easy to adjust the brackets to ensure only the needy would receive an increased net income from UBI."
That does touch on the major problems here. First, that it's coming from tax revenues instead of new funds produced by the federal reserve. Second that this should be some sort of charity measure for the needy. The amount is simple, $15/hr * 40 hrs, the same amount we reasonably determine should be the minimum wage and that also becomes the new standard deduction and that is the only program that occurs me off hand you'd actually eliminate with this. Many others would simply become obsolete as nobody would qualify anymore. But since this would only apply to current US citizens and their descendants you wouldn't want to eliminate programs that those other might need in a few generations.
This would be a dramatic economic boon for the US. Workers would be empowered because their jobs would only be supplemental income which gives them a much stronger bargaining position with employers. That wouldn't be all bad for employers though as they could bring many jobs back from overseas getting reduced labor rates without third world quality. This would cut our imports and increase our exports. Additionally, there would be more capital floating around in private hands to buy those goods and services. More people would have disposable income for both domestic and foreign investment instead of having to spend every dime that comes in.
We don't eliminate most programs we eliminate qualification for those programs. This article is ridiculous, a basic income would be paid from the fed tap not tax funds. The amount is simple, if we are looking at 40hr @ $15/hr as a minimum wage that is the figure we need for a basic income and the minimum wage we do eliminate. That amount becomes the new standard tax deduction.
That alone would enable taking thousands jobs back from illegal and imported workers, US workers who are only looking at jobs to provide supplemental income can suddenly undercut them. This hits tech, this hits manufacturing. Instead of a burden you have a boom for businesses while at the same time shifting more power to workers who are in a more reasonable bargaining position. This helps restore the traditional family allowing a worker to actually stay home and take care of children in a modern economy where costs have raised in response to dual incomes to require dual incomes.
There should of course be a limitation. Only those who are citizens at the time this enacted and their descendants should draw the basic income.
"Basically what they are really saying, is their needs, their psychopathic ego, demands poor people (a capital fabrication) they can exploit to feed the insatiable ego of psychopaths. The demand to have more, they must have more, the demand to be able to order other people about, not just some but as many as possible, in fact they fight amongst themselves for total control and absolute power over everyone else. "
Well of course it is. But the bottom line is that automation and globalization mean the rich people in the United States are moving on from using poor people here to exploiting the far more plentiful and poor people in Asia. Either we establish a system for making sure our relatively tiny relative working class lives off the benefits or we will soon be left in impoverished dust. This is fair enough, we built the business and technological foundation that is and will be utilized by the world.
This should not be funded from taxes it should be funded right from the fed tap instead of pumping those funds out to banks.
Well sure and we don't fund it via tax, we fund it from the fed tap.
I meant from a security perspective.
The reasons you gave for your assertion are more assertions.
"My interests are even more counter to 99.99% of us than those of the establishment. So are yours, and anyone else's for that matter."
Sorry, that isn't true of me and the vast majority of people. We don't all agree on everything but there is actually a great deal of overlap. A candidate does not need be oneself personified.
'"The establishment" represents the best compromise we can come up with.'
Far from it. The establishment represents the wealthy. 99.99% of us overlap in that we aren't members of those groups and it is never in our interest to support them when those interests overlap with ours. The establishment is a single party with two flavors of spin, these factions are carefully designed to fracture and divide us into "us" and "them" categories on issues we will never agree on, we feel very strongly about, and keep us distracted from class power division in this country.
I think you'll find there are more than a few in this nation who do not believe an elite ruling class based on economic status such as is found in the senate is appropriate in the modern world of widespread education. We are no longer interested in a government that is about keeping the populace content enough not to revolt so the upper ranks can carry on as usual. Especially in a global and automated economy where the interests of the wealthy are less and less tied to the working population whose backs they've ridden on for so long.