Do people vote more on having a job than the macro economics of the country?

I think most people me included barely have any idea about economics what it is how it works
Let alone macro economics.
I can imagine that the prospect of jobs or general improvement in living standards and possibly the environment might attract voters.

He certainly wasn’t right about spelling “arguments”
But to answer your question, they did in the last US Presidential election. Too late now to find out how wrong they were.
On the one hand it is easy to say we should be aware of the bigger picture, the national economy, the country’s future but on the other, that’s hard when a area loses its main provider of employment (fossil fuels v net zero) or perhaps education or care services are relegated to lesser importance. Or you feel that your access to medical services is under threat eg from increased numbers of migrants.
I m not saying who is right or wrong but it is understandable.

People vote for what directly affects them most. Jobs in areas of unemployment, housing in areas of exceptional housing stress, education, the NHS, transport as and where these make people's life difficult.

Economic issues, per se, have never guided people's votes and I doubt they ever will. Jobs are not an issue where I live because unemployment rates are below average and jobs are mainly permanent and well-paid. On the other hand transport - poorly maintained roads, local national routes working well above capacity, with the constant delays this causes, the disruption caused by HS2, the vast number of temporary traffic lights caused by the amount of new estates being built, which makes almost any journey, even to the local shops, a nightmare, and most of all, the plan to build a huge reservoir in the area affect voting intentions far more than jobs.

The national issue that affects them most is a deep cynical disconnect from national politics, that means more and more people are not voting or voting for anyone other than the two main parties. Up north this has meant lots of Reform MPs. In my area it has meant most local constituencies now have Liberal Democrat MPs.

Sure Start is a classic example of the disconnect between voters and the 2 main parties - and also Luke Campbell. I doubt anyone who benefitted from Sure Start saw it in economic benefit terms. All will have supported it because of the help it gave to children and families in areas of deprivation and children in those areas have suffered badly from its loss.

One of the most intersting things about Reform successes in recent local elections is how quiet they have gone since winning all these councils. Someone commented to me that Reforms sudden growth meant that many new councillors had little or no experience of what being a councillor involved, the long hours of unpaid work, the evenings spent at meetings, the limitations to what they can achieve because of legislative rules that restrict their freedom to reduce services, or exclude groups from benefitting from services.

Its wonderful making all these promises of R(r)eform when you are just strutting the streets and online. It is a very different kettle of fish when you get your hands on the levers of power and discover they can only adjust things not change them.

I think you're right welbeck. Few of us understand the economics of a country although most will get some of the basics, and even fewer of us can work out the outcomes unless the are likely to directly affect us.

I think, in the last Presidential election they were lied to on the economics - or do you think they were told the truth RosieandherMaw? There are obvious areas where alt right policies were connected to growth in jobs and so picked up votes but when implemented lost many existing jobs and show no signs of creating new ones. An example would be their policy on undocumented migrants. Hasn't this now been shown to deplete the economy and therefore deplete the jobs available rather than grow them? I'm sure others can point to more areas. My view is that this still agrees with the premise that voters did vote for a promise of job improvement but didn't understand the underlying economics (that showed these promises were lies) or simply didnt think it relevent.

I don't think your correction will help me but thank you for trying RosieandherMaw. At 75 I tend to be of the "celebrate the small wins" view, and the fact that I wrote something that could be generally understood was one of those

Personally, when I vote in local elections I vote for whom I think will deal with local issues the best way for local residents.

At GE I always vote for the party I feel is most aligned with my own beliefs, ethos and morals.

This is why I could never ever ever vote for a party like Reform.

I think M0nica is right. Most people will vote based on the issues which directly affect the most, rather than taking into account any wider picture. And, although I hate to make a sweeping generalisation, I do think many people just aren't interested in what they see as 'politics'.
If they think voting for a particular party will mean more money in their pocket or more jobs (just to give a couple of examples), then that's what they'll do.

I agree ViceVersa it's generally what may or may not affect people on an individual basis that's the decider when it comes to voting.

I tend to vote for the person rather than the party these days which means I chop and change. A good, honest politician who wants to do what is right for the local area is ideal but sadly rare now.

I don't see how most people can possibly make any judgements on the country's macro economics when they have been fed massive untruths for decades about the working of a national economy; the primary one being that a government has to generate tax revenue before it can spend anything.

This has been perpetrated by economists, politicians and journalists, from both ignorance on their own parts or conformity to the 'economy story' being necessary to get their writings published. Unorthodox views are ignored or marginalised.

It's something of an ouroboros (imagine a snake eating its own tail) really as they also have a regard to the public perception of how a national economy works (constantly reinforced by their repetitions of the untruths) and will accommodate that when they say, write, or do anything.

Interesting paper here:

www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13563467.2022.2109610

Cossy

Personally, when I vote in local elections I vote for whom I think will deal with local issues the best way for local residents.

At GE I always vote for the party I feel is most aligned with my own beliefs, ethos and morals.

This is why I could never ever ever vote for a party like Reform.

I vote at G E for the party most aligned with my beliefs, ethos and morals. That is why I could never ever, ever vote for Labour.

I don't agree. We have become a nation that votes against things, rather than in favour of things.
Lots of people believe Labour only got in because people were voting against the Tories.
People vote Reform because they are against immigration.
Some people may vote based on whether a government will stand against certain alliances- ie Europe.
Rich people will vote against taxation.
Poor people will vote against losing their jobs, even if those jobs are poorly paid.
This is how modern politics works.
Oh for someone will real progressive ideas that will offer something for us to vote for!

I belueve you are right keepingquiet. I think it is fear driven rather than based on direct experience of whatever people are worried about. For example, the strongest support for Reform is in the east of England, which has the lowest migrant population

There are many rich people who give much of their money to charity and would not vote against extra taxation. They just never hit the headlines because they do not indulge in conspicuous consumption.

Anyway, the question I always ask is what do you mean by wealthy. An income of £50k a year?, £100K? £1 million and assets of £100k, £1 million? £10 million? £100 million?

You cannot make any generalisations about rich people until you define exactly who they are.

I too think M0nica's on to something in her 11:01:09 post.

If I have understood it M0nica, you are saying that it's not just "jobs" that come above the macro economy but what we could call the "micro economy" of different areas which defines what is meant by "jobs" in different areas.

I've been greatly in favour of Combined Authority Mayors because they now get to decide how their area is run in that micro economic way. We may be a small country (the last comparison I heard was that we are roughly the same size as Alabama) but we have always been mighty in our diversity.

I see too that the Labour Party is releasing their industrial strategy next week (their first anniversary). This too "could" show our diversity and "could" herald something closer to equal funding than we have had for many years. I like the picture of this policy bringing an overall view of diverse strengths - we shall see!

People vote for what directly affects them most.

Absolutely agree M0nica

Surely jobs and the macro economy are inextricably linked?

You cannot make any generalisations about rich people until you define exactly who they are.

This is true M0nica. "What is not measured, cannot be improved." I don't know if this helps but Gary Stevenson (Gary Economics), says the people who are increasingly taking wealth from most of society are the very rich and they are the threat to the middle class. He sets "rich" at people with >£10m.

I agree that it is the "middle-class" (middle income) who start and grow businesses. The very rich do not, generally, take such risks. Those who can rise to "middle income" or are in the middle income are the backbone of our society.

That may be true Allira but voting is not about truths that allow us to have an objective view of our socioeconomic status but perception that is filtered through all of our prior experiences and memories which allow us to believe one set of politics over another.

Our subjective perception of where we stand in the social hierarchy gives each of us a biased view. You only have to listen to the squeals on here when wealth tax is mentioned and the look at where the drivers of this view place "wealth". The "perception" obscures truth.

There isn't a social hierarchy these days, just a money hierachy. A good tradesman can earn as much as some professions and they will live side by side on the same housing estates and share the same interests

M0nica

There isn't a social hierarchy these days, just a money hierachy. A good tradesman can earn as much as some professions and they will live side by side on the same housing estates and share the same interests

A good tradesman can earn as much as some professions

Or far more, in fact!

I think you need to have that argument with Gary Stevenson M0nica

Here is another view of how to define wealth www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/are-you-wealthy-how-much-in-income-cash-property-and-pensions-does-it-take-to-be-rich/ar-AA1rVQej?ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&cvid=0efbf52a74b94f8ba44f7f85a9ce54dd&ei=8

If you have £90,000 in the bank, a home worth £310,000-plus and a £627,000 pension pot then you can consider yourself wealthy, new research reveals. That is what individuals with the top 10 per cent of assets in the country typically hold, and they are most likely to enjoy such prosperity in their early 60s, just before retirement.

Meanwhile, the richest 20 per cent of households have a median income after tax of around £78,400 a year.

Just out of interest.

BBC Lab UK worked with Prof Mike Savage of the London School of Economics and Prof Devine on the study carried out a study with more than 161,000 people taking part in the Great British Class Survey, the largest study of class in the UK. They found seven categories.

Elite - the most privileged group in the UK, distinct from the other six classes through its wealth. This group has the highest levels of all three capitals. (Economic, Social and Cultural.)

Established middle class - the second wealthiest, scoring highly on all three capitals. The largest and most gregarious group, scoring second highest for cultural capital.

Technical middle class - a small, distinctive new class group which is prosperous but scores low for social and cultural capital. Distinguished by its social isolation and cultural apathy.

New affluent workers - a young class group which is socially and culturally active, with middling levels of economic capital

Traditional working class - scores low on all forms of capital, but is not completely deprived. Its members have reasonably high house values, explained by this group having the oldest average age at 66.

Emergent service workers - a new, young, urban group which is relatively poor but has high social and cultural capital.

Precariat, or precarious proletariat - the poorest, most deprived class, scoring low for social and cultural capital.

M0nica

Here is another view of how to define wealth www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/are-you-wealthy-how-much-in-income-cash-property-and-pensions-does-it-take-to-be-rich/ar-AA1rVQej?ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&cvid=0efbf52a74b94f8ba44f7f85a9ce54dd&ei=8

If you have £90,000 in the bank, a home worth £310,000-plus and a £627,000 pension pot then you can consider yourself wealthy, new research reveals. That is what individuals with the top 10 per cent of assets in the country typically hold, and they are most likely to enjoy such prosperity in their early 60s, just before retirement.

^Meanwhile, the richest 20 per cent of households have a median income after tax of around £78,400 a year.^

I'm not sure how defining 'wealth' is relevant to the question asked, which, if I've understood it correctly, boils down to 'What influences people to vote, jobs or economic arguments?'

Picking one sentence from a post and turning it into a question of what constitutes 'wealth' derails the purpose of the thread.

I'd agree that people do mainly seem to vote from self interest, but their self interest is often informed by their perception of the economic state of the country. After all, the perception that a party will run a stable and buoyant economy will hold out the prospect of well paid and secure jobs.