• FlowVoid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    127
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Hard times create Democratic presidents, Democratic presidents create good times, good times create Republican presidents, and Republican presidents create hard times.

  • Bassman1805@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    2 months ago

    The article does call out that 1989 is a pretty arbitrary starting point, and extending that to 1945 creates a less lopsided (but still Democrat-favoring) picture.

    I’d be interested in the comparison looking back to Nixon, as he was a stark departure from the republican party of Eisenhower. And of course he lead to Reagan, Bush 1&2, and Trump.

    • Lemminary@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      36
      ·
      2 months ago

      I think it’s a fine starting point if Republicans haven’t been job creators for 35 years which is almost the entire millennial generation. What a bleak view, honestly.

      • FatCrab@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        I am 38, grew up in WI, spent the majority of my life in various Midwestern states, and for over a decade now have lived in Boston. I always say that, ignoring everything else (which is a lot), I have never seen a Republican governing body ever do anything but make life worse–be it state or federal. I have no experience of Republicans as anything but utterly incompetent failures at statescraft.

      • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        Yeah it gives you enough time to see the long term effects of neoliberalism selling off public assets kicking in, instead of the temporary cash influx.

      • Crashumbc@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        Probably, it was the creation of an entirely new sector, and there was a fairly huge bubble that broke right 2000-1, that took years to recover from.

        And bush royally fucked the economy with the IRAQ war then removing banking regulations that led to the 2008 collapse.

        Don’t get me wrong, I loved Clinton, I’m just pointing out things aren’t always clear cut. There’s many factors and not all of them are controllable.

        • Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          I just spent the last hour and a half looking at numbers for jobs in the tech sector from 1990-2010. It seems there is a LOT of disagreement on just how many tech jobs there have been, what percent of the total economy they are, what to even consider “tech” jobs, just how much the dotcom bust affected the total tech job market, as many think the losses were over stated, while other aspects of the tech industry in general were growing faster than ever. Just a lot. Basically, doesn’t seem like anyone actually knows, a lot of places say it is def this, or that, but there is a lot of conflicting information. A lot of places point out that a bunch of stats are unproven, both for the positive, and the negative.

          Damn. Apparently the answer is 🤷‍♂️