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

It's not a dispute, I was just trying to explain in simple terms to Mojack26 who asked on Tue 24-Jun-25 14:13:15.

I'll leave you all to it.

M0nica

Allira

Macro = large scale
Micro = very small scale

Depends on the context.

I'm really not sure what this dispute is about. Micro and macro-economics are standard terms. I can't see what context has to do with it.

I already gave one standard definition:

"Microeconomics is the study of decisions made by individuals and businesses. Macroeconomics looks higher up at national and government economic decisions."

Examples of "micro" would be a business investing more in a certain product, lowering prices or an individual deciding to spend rather than saving. It would also include how government initiatives impact on individual industries and individuals. Examples of "macro" would be raising taxes or lowering interest rates or studying inflation or economic growth.

Do you have examples please?

Allira

Macro = large scale
Micro = very small scale

Depends on the context.

Which is kind of what I was saying earlier?

AuntieE

I imagine anyone with bills to pay is highly unlikely to vote for anything that is likely to make it hard for them to find a job, or keep the one they have.

To be alturistic you need to be able to put food on your own table every day, and pay the rent.

That sounds perfectly reasonable, but people voted for Thatcher, who promptly trebled unemployment figures from 1 million to 3 million. And for tory ‘austerity’ under Cameron. Both were disastrous for jobs.

I wonder if complacency, a belief by people in work that their jobs would never be lost, played its part, too?

Macro = large scale
Micro = very small scale

AuntieE

I imagine anyone with bills to pay is highly unlikely to vote for anything that is likely to make it hard for them to find a job, or keep the one they have.

To be alturistic you need to be able to put food on your own table every day, and pay the rent.

Yes, I agree with this.

Realistically, anyone able to step back from having to pay bills and take a wider view should probably check their privilege, and I include myself in that.

Mojack26

Eh?Neverheard of macro economics.....🤣 above my pay grade

It isn't really above your pay grade. The difference is quite simple.

Here's one definition:

"Microeconomics is the study of decisions made by individuals and businesses. Macroeconomics looks higher up at national and government economic decisions."

GCSE Economics is divided into two major topics. It calls one "How markets work" (ie micro economics) and the second topic "How the economy works" (ie macro economics).

It is a short hand way of saying the bigger picture or the national or regional economy compared with the micro economy that means a much smaller area.

A computer macro is so called because it aggregates a whole set of smaller instructions that are necessary to achieve a ,usually fairly simple task. So it too is the bigger picture.

Mojack26

Eh?Neverheard of macro economics.....🤣 above my pay grade

Macros mean something different too!
Commands on the computer.

I think it's just a posh way of saying "the bigger picture".

AuntieE

I imagine anyone with bills to pay is highly unlikely to vote for anything that is likely to make it hard for them to find a job, or keep the one they have.

To be alturistic you need to be able to put food on your own table every day, and pay the rent.

But this is not the same as saying people only vote about jobs. In a period or area of high employment where getting a suitable job is easy and employers want to keep the staff they have, you do not think about employment your main thought will be about whatever in your life is difficult - homes, medical care, transport etc.

I imagine anyone with bills to pay is highly unlikely to vote for anything that is likely to make it hard for them to find a job, or keep the one they have.

To be alturistic you need to be able to put food on your own table every day, and pay the rent.

I’m suggesting that a definition of wealth is an irrelevancy.

Only to you MaizieD. I would suggest that those posting about it, all mature adults courteously putting their point of view, don't see it as irrelevant. Indeed, explanations have been offered explaining why posters think it relevent.

Eh?Neverheard of macro economics.....🤣 above my pay grade

PoliticsNerd

I understand you're trying to guide the discussion MaizieD, but it feels like we're already on a good track. There seems to be no lack of thoughtful discussion. Wouldn't it be better to see where the conversation naturally goes rather than try to adjudicate?

A ‘good track’ doesn’t encompass irrelevancies. I’m suggesting that a definition of wealth is an irrelevancy. The rest of the discussion is interesting.

My post above was in reply to MaizieD Tue 24-Jun-25 07:45:57

I understand you're trying to guide the discussion MaizieD, but it feels like we're already on a good track. There seems to be no lack of thoughtful discussion. Wouldn't it be better to see where the conversation naturally goes rather than try to adjudicate?

keepingquiet

MaizieD

^ There is also the theory that people identify with particular groups, even when it is blatantly obvious that they don’t belong and would never be accepted, and vote in line with that identification. I can’t remember the detail, but that is the explanation often given for working and lower middle class Tories. They believe that one day they could earn £X or live in the house on the hill, and vote accordingly, so that the interests of the group they aspire to are protected, ready for when they are able to join.^

It’s somewhat related to Stockholm Syndrome I believe. 😆

It seems incredibly prevalent- look at MAGA and Reform- they both latch onto people's fears yet offer nothing for them to help their everyday lives.

People are disconnected from themselves and this has been deliberately managed by the media in particular.

Exactly.

People don't like the idea of raising taxes for those earning four times as much as much as them, as they are convinced that one day they will be in that income bracket. The fact that parties advocating low tax are rarely interested in state intervention to make social mobility possible doesn't occur to them.

It's the same with private medicine and education. Someone who thinks that one day they might want to pay for a new hip and can just about afford it can be persuaded that everyone should pay a contribution to open access to private treatment. What they don't see is that without the NHS private operators have a monopoly, can charge what they like and have no obligation to treat anyone with existing conditions and no money. Look what happened to dentistry and veterinary treatment.

MaizieD

^ There is also the theory that people identify with particular groups, even when it is blatantly obvious that they don’t belong and would never be accepted, and vote in line with that identification. I can’t remember the detail, but that is the explanation often given for working and lower middle class Tories. They believe that one day they could earn £X or live in the house on the hill, and vote accordingly, so that the interests of the group they aspire to are protected, ready for when they are able to join.^

It’s somewhat related to Stockholm Syndrome I believe. 😆

It seems incredibly prevalent- look at MAGA and Reform- they both latch onto people's fears yet offer nothing for them to help their everyday lives.

People are disconnected from themselves and this has been deliberately managed by the media in particular.

^ There is also the theory that people identify with particular groups, even when it is blatantly obvious that they don’t belong and would never be accepted, and vote in line with that identification. I can’t remember the detail, but that is the explanation often given for working and lower middle class Tories. They believe that one day they could earn £X or live in the house on the hill, and vote accordingly, so that the interests of the group they aspire to are protected, ready for when they are able to join.^

It’s somewhat related to Stockholm Syndrome I believe. 😆

PoliticsNerd

The discussion suggested in the OP was "Economic arguements do not work to gain votes." I really can't see why a sub-discussion on the definition of wealth doesn't seem relevant to that question MaizieD. In political discourse, wealth will often influence both the content of economic side of the arguments and the effectiveness of political decisions in attracting votes.

The ‘sub-discussion’ of the definition of wealth takes over the topic and is usually inconclusive. As this thread isn’t actually interested in economics per se, merely in motivations for voting, it seems to be irrelevant.

M0nica

Defining wealth is necessary because so many people are,obsessed with what motivates the 'rich' or 'wealthy' people to do all kinds of things, including vote, without ever defining what their definition of 'rich' or 'wealthy' is.

Economist, Thomas Piketty spent several years researching available data on ‘wealth’ and wrote what is probably a key text on the subject’Capital in the 21st Century’. I suggest that you read it! MOnica, it will answer your question far better than Wealth Management company with a vested interest in making money from managing other people’s money or random posters on an internet forum whose attempts to provide research informed answers you ignore anyway.

You still haven’t responded to the Taxing Wealth Report I have linked to several times. I assume that you won’t do so until you have a definition of ‘wealth’ that satisfies you?

Isn’t ’wealthy’ usually defined as those with (or who appear to have) more than the speaker, much as alcoholics are those who drink more, etc? It’s always going to be relative.

There is also the theory that people identify with particular groups, even when it is blatantly obvious that they don’t belong and would never be accepted, and vote in line with that identification. I can’t remember the detail, but that is the explanation often given for working and lower middle class Tories. They believe that one day they could earn £X or live in the house on the hill, and vote accordingly, so that the interests of the group they aspire to are protected, ready for when they are able to join.

I think there’s something of a mixture of what has been said already. Self-preservation is a huge driver, which is understandable. If a party makes it clear that they will close mines, cut spending on universities or tax sweet food and you are a miner, an academic or work in a bakery you are unlikely to vote for them. You might argue that it is economically unsound to close mines that can never be reopened, that education is important to the economy and that people should have freedom of choice over what they eat. You might firmly believe those things, but the bottom line is that you are afraid that losing your job will threaten the security of your family, your home and lifestyle, and that is a very powerful motivation.

I suppose that for most people their political views are shaped by their own circumstances - they grow around our experiences - so a politician or political party/company who can tap into hopes and fears can present it as concern for the environment or as a way to move jobs from one sector to another, but people will vote for what will affect them, if they can work out what that is.

I think that explains a lot of the vague language used by all politicians these days. Talking about things being on their knees, off a cliff or under a bus is waffle, designed to hide the impact of policies on individuals. When the ‘debate’ is couched in those terms nobody knows what anyone else is talking about, anything can be denied and what seem to be promises broken with nobody any the wiser.

Some will find more altruistic reasons to explain their votes, but turkeys don’t vote for Christmas- and why would they?

Defining wealth is necessary because so many people are,obsessed with what motivates the 'rich' or 'wealthy' people to do all kinds of things, including vote, without ever defining what their definition of 'rich' or 'wealthy' is.