Political Views and Occupation/Profession/Degree of Study (1 Viewer)

[ajn_sth_aust]

Occupation/Profession is often linked to a strong bias in terms of political views. For instance, here in Australia, two basically true stereotypes are that teachers are left-wing and those in the military and police are right-wing.

What in your opinions are other occupations where there is a strong skew towards left or right? Just asking as I was discussing this with some friends.

Also am particularly interested if in these occupations have changed over time. For instance, at least here in Australia, to my knowledge, up until the 1960's and even the 1970's teachers were far more evenly balanced, but afterwards became heavily left-wing.

Also how much of this bias is due to 'rational self-interest', ie voting for a party which will provide lots of funding to your profession (ie right-wing parties will generally fund the military more) and how much instead reflects the broader worldview which tends to be present in the profession?

I'm sure there would be lots of research on this, but just thought it's be interesting to ask.

Another interesting theory I have heard which is a good predictor of occupation/political views link, is Status-Income Disequilibrium; this means when the status accorded to any occupation is either disproroportionately low or high, compared to the income earned.

There are some occupations where Status is higher than Income; examples would include teachers, journalists and academics. These occupations tend to be the most strongly left-wing.

OTOH, there are some occupations where Status is lower than Income: examples would include tradespeople and small-business owners. These occupations tend to be the most strongly right-wing.

Would you agree that this observation is correct.

As this is a study/education themed website, people might also like to comment on their observation on the link between degree choice and political views (which of course later leads to the occupational difference).

 

[Chemical Ali]

Left and right wing are so inadequate as descriptions of political views

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

Occupation/Profession is often linked to a strong bias in terms of political views. For instance, here in Australia, two basically true stereotypes are that teachers are left-wing and those in the military and police are right-wing.

What in your opinions are other occupations where there is a strong skew towards left or right? Just asking as I was discussing this with some friends.

Also am particularly interested if in these occupations have changed over time. For instance, at least here in Australia, to my knowledge, up until the 1960's and even the 1970's teachers were far more evenly balanced, but afterwards became heavily left-wing.

Also how much of this bias is due to 'rational self-interest', ie voting for a party which will provide lots of funding to your profession (ie right-wing parties will generally fund the military more) and how much instead reflects the broader worldview which tends to be present in the profession?

I'm sure there would be lots of research on this, but just thought it's be interesting to ask.

Another interesting theory I have heard which is a good predictor of occupation/political views link, is Status-Income Disequilibrium; this means when the status accorded to any occupation is either disproroportionately low or high, compared to the income earned.

There are some occupations where Status is higher than Income; examples would include teachers, journalists and academics. These occupations tend to be the most strongly left-wing.

OTOH, there are some occupations where Status is lower than Income: examples would include tradespeople and small-business owners. These occupations tend to be the most strongly right-wing.

Would you agree that this observation is correct.

As this is a study/education themed website, people might also like to comment on their observation on the link between degree choice and political views (which of course later leads to the occupational difference).

Can't say I agree with your theory, but it is interesting none the less.

I'd question whether status is particularly high for teachers, journalists and academics. Also, their income is higher than the national average (unless they have just started teaching, or are freelance journalists). So I think their status probably matches their income pretty closely.

As you say police and military people tend to be right wing, but have high status and quite average incomes so this does not fit with your status-income disequilibrium theory.

I think it has more to do with two factors, education and self interest.

Highly educated people are more likely to be left wing because universities tend to be predominantly left wing .

Self interest promotes teacher to be left wing because they are highly unionized. Similarly with less educated jobs, factory workers are far more likely to vote labor because they are unionized whereas self employed trades people are more likely to vote liberal.

 

[Elliot220]

All of my right-wing friends who go to university are doing courses that revolve around science or economics. If you look at statistics (from the US) the only fields in which the vast majority of professors are not left-wing; it's in the scientific/mathematic/economic courses.

The economics makes sense, any leftist with an interest in economics would have some serious inner demons to tackle.

 

[badquinton304]

All of my right-wing friends who go to university are doing courses that revolve around science or economics. If you look at statistics (from the US) the only fields in which the vast majority of professors are not left-wing; it's in the scientific/mathematic/economic courses.

The economics makes sense, any leftist with an interest in economics would have some serious inner demons to tackle.

Which set of statistics?
I found one for democrats vs republicans among scientists.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/10/only-six-percent-of-scien_n_229382.html

I can't think of that many well known scientists or mathematicians who were "right-wing", although I have come across "moderate right" scientists.
Bertrand Russell was a socialist, so was einstein, stephen hawking is a social democrat or possibly a democratic socialist, I bet carl sagan was too.

But yeah I would like to see this looked into a bit more.

 

[jb_nc]

Which set of statistics?
I found one for democrats vs republicans among scientists.
Only Six Percent Of Scientists Are Republicans: Pew Poll

I can't think of that many well known scientists or mathematicians who were "right-wing", although I have come across "moderate right" scientists.
Bertrand Russell was a socialist, so was einstein, stephen hawking is a social democrat or possibly a democratic socialist, I bet carl sagan was too.

But yeah I would like to see this looked into a bit more.

whatever man, how dare you refute some bullshit i just made up

 

[Elliot220]

I can't think of that many well known scientists or mathematicians who were "right-wing", although I have come across "moderate right" scientists.
Bertrand Russell was a socialist, so was einstein, stephen hawking is a social democrat or possibly a democratic socialist, I bet carl sagan was too.

But yeah I would like to see this looked into a bit more.

I was looking at statistics from professors at American universities and where they stood politically... I'll see if I can find it.

 

[ajn_sth_aust]

All of my right-wing friends who go to university are doing courses that revolve around science or economics. If you look at statistics (from the US) the only fields in which the vast majority of professors are not left-wing; it's in the scientific/mathematic/economic courses.

The economics makes sense, any leftist with an interest in economics would have some serious inner demons to tackle.

I'll try to find the statistics, but I remember reading that the majority of American economists are Democrats not Republicans.

I'm not sure about the extent to which the strong salience of social issues (ie abortion and same-sex marriage, etc) in US politics would affect this.

Almost all economists, regardless of political affiliation support strongly free market policies, ie free trade, privatisation, de-regulation.

Without wishing to turn this into an actual debate about policies, I would suggest that support for what might be termed the very 'basics' of neo-liberal economics is NOT a good indicator of a person's ideological placement. I'm using the terms 'neo-liberal' to mean the things I stated above, ie free trade, privatisation, de-regulation.

In other words HOW wealth is produced does not in the post Cold War world reflect a person's left/right placement. I known quite a few people from ALP circles (I'm an ALP member) and for instance, having spoken to a few Labor Left MPs, most of them seem to accept free market economics as the only viable way of producing wealth.

The key thing, IMHO, which determines how left/right a person is (there are other things, but this is the key issue) is once the free market has produced the wealth, how much do you or don't you support economic re-distribution.

To use a key example, many Nordic nations, particularly Denmark, are surprisingly free-market economies, very de-regulated and ranking high on economic freedom indices (Sweden even has school vouchers!)

However, they have massive welfare states (total government spending of up to 60% of GDP in some cases as opposed to Australia's less than 35% of GDP), which result in very low income inequality.

This to mean is what defines left versus right. I'm sure that there are lots of other views though on what defines these terms.

Of course this is all off-topic!

 

[Elliot220]

The key thing, IMHO, which determines how left/right a person is (there are other things, but this is the key issue) is once the free market has produced the wealth, how much do you or don't you support economic re-distribution.

Good point, I've never heard it phrased that way but I like it. Definitely more relevent to the left/right wings of a fairly centrist country like Australia.

 

[ajn_sth_aust]

Can't say I agree with your theory, but it is interesting none the less.

I'd question whether status is particularly high for teachers, journalists and academics. Also, their income is higher than the national average (unless they have just started teaching, or are freelance journalists). So I think their status probably matches their income pretty closely.

As you say police and military people tend to be right wing, but have high status and quite average incomes so this does not fit with your status-income disequilibrium theory.

Journalist's income is actually quite low for an occupation that nowadays have a de facto requirement of a tertiary degree (I should know, it's what I'm going to uni to train to be, LOL!). An editor at my local regional newspaper was talking to me about the typical salaries of journalists; a starting salary at a regional newspaper is around $35 000 or just over that. This then increases up to just under $60 000, where it stops (unless you become an editor, etc). Whilst not exactly low, it is only slightly above the median income in Australia, so relatively low for a tertiary educated occupation.

In metropolitan areas, the starting salary is around $45 000 and rises until it reaches a maximum usually in the $80 000's (again unless you become an editor).

Whilst no-one could say that journalists (or teachers for that matter, which is the other example I used) are lowly-paid when you consider the entirety of th community, they are lower-paid than most tertiary educated occupations; which is who they are likely to compare themselves too (and this gives them the perception of being under-paid.

My theory about status-income disequilibrium is based on the concept of
market failure.

Whilst most left-wingers will agree that the free-market is basically a good thing for most things and similarly, most right-wingers will agree that cases of market failure exist, I personally think that how left-wing or right-wing a person is is determined to a large degree by the extent to which you believe in the notion of market failure.


To use an example:


a) Self-employed tradesperson: 'I left school at Year 11, did an apprenticeship, worked as an employee for several years, saved up and brought my own business. See, the free market works'.


b) Academic: 'I completed Year 12, studied a Bachelor Degree, Master's Degree and a PhD. However, I still earn less that the self-employed tradesperson who left school at Year 11. Obviously, the someting is wrong with the free market, if this is the outcome.'

 

[funkshen]

Err, how are inter-industry wage differentials, in this case between self employed tradespersons and academics, an example of market failure? Or are you using the term 'market failure' to mean you don't think you're being paid as much as you should be? In which case you should probably term that suboptimal status-income outcomes... or something.

 

[ajn_sth_aust]

Err, how are inter-industry wage differentials, in this case between self employed tradespersons and academics, an example of market failure? Or are you using the term 'market failure' to mean you don't think you're being paid as much as you should be? In which case you should probably term that suboptimal status-income outcomes... or something.

Yes, that's what I meant. I meant that a good indicator of someone being left-wing is the extent to which they think that the free market doesn't monetarily reward their occupation as much as it 'should'.

Therefore, a person with a high status, but lower-income (lower-income relative to their status, not by comparison to the entire community, etc) occupation is quite likely to be left-wing. This might explain (among other things) why academics are as a rule left-wing.

My theory on 'market failure' or 'sub-optimal status-income outcomes', as you call it, reminds me of a quote I once heard about the 1960/70's, British Labour PM Harold Wilson. He was commenting on the Christine Wheeler scandal (about a Conservative minister who had been the client of a high-class escort. I'm para-phrasing here, but reflectively on the hourly rate Wheeler charged, said something like, 'There's something wrong with a system where a prostitute can earn x times what a backbencher does, x times what a Prime Minister does and x times what company director does.'

This is the sort of line of thinking I was speaking of (albeit under very different circumstances.)

 

[TacoTerrorist]

Yes, that's what I meant. I meant that a good indicator of someone being left-wing is the extent to which they think that the free market doesn't monetarily reward their occupation as much as it 'should'.

Therefore, a person with a high status, but lower-income (lower-income relative to their status, not by comparison to the entire community, etc) occupation is quite likely to be left-wing. This might explain (among other things) why academics are as a rule left-wing.

The free market is a farce, and I think you're exaggerating in your claim that 'most left-wingers will agree that the free-market is basically a good thing'. When/if you head out into the real world of political activism you'll find that free market/free trade and its horrendous proponents (WTO, World Bank, IMF) are prime enemies of true lefties. I think academics are generally left-wing because they are highly educated and intelligent, unlike most of Australia's population which is politically apathetic and uninformed, and liable to consider right-wing media spin. Furthermore, different occupations attract people of differing backgrounds and ideals.

 

[0bs3n3]

The free market is a farce, and I think you're exaggerating in your claim that 'most left-wingers will agree that the free-market is basically a good thing'. When/if you head out into the real world of political activism you'll find that free market/free trade and its horrendous proponents (WTO, World Bank, IMF) are prime enemies of true lefties. I think academics are generally left-wing because they are highly educated and intelligent, unlike most of Australia's population which is politically apathetic and uninformed, and liable to consider right-wing media spin. Furthermore, different occupations attract people of differing backgrounds and ideals.

coz its totally academic to oppose free trade uleh!

 

[TacoTerrorist]

^ Hurp derp the status quo is always right uleh, free trade is in the best interests of our corporate masters so let's all support it!

 

[Chemical Ali]

a) Self-employed tradesperson: 'I left school at Year 11, did an apprenticeship, worked as an employee for several years, saved up and brought my own business. See, the free market works'.


b) Academic: 'I completed Year 12, studied a Bachelor Degree, Master's Degree and a PhD. However, I still earn less that the self-employed tradesperson who left school at Year 11. Obviously, the someting is wrong with the free market, if this is the outcome.'

The tradesperson provides a service that is useful and valuable to other people

The academic doesn't

problem?

 

[Optimus Prime]

I know small business owners who hold quite left leaning social values but vote liberal because finnancial security is especially important when you are self employed.

 

[funkshen]

Yes, that's what I meant. I meant that a good indicator of someone being left-wing is the extent to which they think that the free market doesn't monetarily reward their occupation as much as it 'should'.

Therefore, a person with a high status, but lower-income (lower-income relative to their status, not by comparison to the entire community, etc) occupation is quite likely to be left-wing. This might explain (among other things) why academics are as a rule left-wing.

My theory on 'market failure' or 'sub-optimal status-income outcomes', as you call it, reminds me of a quote I once heard about the 1960/70's, British Labour PM Harold Wilson. He was commenting on the Christine Wheeler scandal (about a Conservative minister who had been the client of a high-class escort. I'm para-phrasing here, but reflectively on the hourly rate Wheeler charged, said something like, 'There's something wrong with a system where a prostitute can earn x times what a backbencher does, x times what a Prime Minister does and x times what company director does.'

This is the sort of line of thinking I was speaking of (albeit under very different circumstances.)

Ah, I see. So you're by 'market failure' you're really referring to an individual's subjective/perceived failure or success of the market to monetarily reward them. It's a bit misleading to label it market failure without making that qualification, as market failure has other connotations. Interesting theory though. I'm doubtful of how much utility it has outside of explaining the political bent of self employed tradies and teachers but I hope I'm wrong about that. Also, teachers actually get paid quite well in light of the fact that they only work ~202 days a year? Senior teachers/staff make upwards of 80k a year + super!