Of course, I'm just putting this up as a good-natured jab, but it brings up an interesting question. This was blasted around my office by a co-worker who wouldn't know my political affiliation at all. Which begs the question: Do certain industries attract people of a certain political stance? In my decade in finance, I can say that the great majority of us are Republican. Anyone else notice that their job field nets people with similar views? Enjoy the article, suckers. I'm apparently going to outlive most of you now, to boot. http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20090516/sc_livescience/happinessisbeingoldmaleandrepublican Happiness Is ... Being Old, Male and Republican Buzz Up Send Email IM Share Delicious Digg Facebook Fark Newsvine Reddit StumbleUpon Technorati Yahoo! Bookmarks Print Robert Roy Britt Editorial Director LiveScience.com robert Roy Britt editorial Director livescience.com – Sat May 16, 9:56 am ET Americans grow happier as they age, surveys find. And a new Pew Research Center survey shows the tendency is holding up as the economy tanks. Happiness is a complex thing. Past studies have found that happiness is partly inherited, that Republicans are happier than Democrats, and that old men tend to be happier than old women. And even before the economy got nasty, seniors were found to be generally happier than Baby Boomers. Some of that owes to the American Dream being lived by past generations, while Boomers work two jobs and watch the dream whither. In times like this, it's clear how age can have its advantages. While not all seniors are weathering the recession well, for many the impact is much less severe than it is for younger people. Why? Many people 65 and older retired and downsized their lifestyles before the economy imploded, according to Pew analysts. Most aren't raising kids and many are not so worried about being laid off. Loss of income can be, of course, a source of stress and displeasure. (While money doesn't buy happiness, a study in February showed cash can help, especially when people use it to do stuff instead of buy things.) If you're thinking that Republicans are happy just because they perhaps make more money, that does not seem to be the case. The study that found Republicans to be happier than Democrats also showed that it held true even after adjusting for income. It's those age 50-64 who've "seen their nest eggs shrink the most and their anxieties about retirement swell the most," the Pew survey found. It also finds that younger adults (ages 18-49) "have taken the worst lumps in the job market but remain relatively upbeat about their financial future." Not everyone in any category is blissful, of course. Other research has shown that happiness in old age depends largely on attitude factors such as optimism and coping strategies. Add financial planning to the list. In the new Pew telephone survey, taken in March and April of 2,969 adults, here's how many respondents in each age group said they had cut back on spending in the past year: 18-49: 68 percent 50-64: 59 percent 65+: 36 percent. And is the recession causing stress in your family? 18-49: 52 percent 50-64: 58 percent 65+: 38 percent. Now for the good news: A study in January found that key groups of people in the United States have grown happier over the past few decades, while other have become less so. The result: Happiness inequality has decreased since the 1970s. Americans are becoming more similar to each other on the happiness scale.
No curiosity at all as to why certain fields bring in certain types? I thought it was an interesting enough thought.
In the heart of red america (unless of course secession is accomplished) it is not curious at all to me that people tend to be Republican.
The energy industry is almost exclusively Republican. It's not uncommon at all for board of directors meetings to go off on a tangent to insult Obama. I can't tell you the number of dinners or events I've been to where people just assume everyone in the room is Republican -- and they are almost always right -- and go off on a hilarious spree of insults towards Obama and the libs. I'm talking about the real energy industry -- not the 1.5% of it that represents renewables' role, although I'd venture to say that even much of that industry is Republican. I'd go so far as to say that most decision makers in industries where tangible goods are actually produced (i.e. does not include education, Hollywood, baby-prevention, and community organizing) are Republicans.
No, actually it's a function of the Democrats having no basic understanding of how energy markets work.
To be honest, I'm completely unsurprised about this. Certain sectors do pull in certain people. Not exactly scientific data to confirm this or anything, but off of my own personal experience and prejudiced opinions, the often repeated assertion that college professors are mad liberals...is true. I'd say more, but living in Canada, EVERYTHING is liberal in comparison, so eh. ...Though, I dunno if this strikes anyone else, but the three fields cited as being "full of Republicans" are most in danger of becoming obsolete or at least of becoming significantly reformed/overhauled over the next few years (domestic manufacturing, conventional energy and finance).
Don't think that's not for a politican reason. The libs are taking full advantage of their honeymoon period and the media's full support to cripple industries that help their opposition. Speaking for the energy industry -- it's not that the field attracts people who are naturally conservative. The reason why the energy industry is so conservative is because anyone with access to information would know that the Democrats' energy proposals are just bat schit crazy.
Uh huh, because the financial sector totally didn't bankrupt itself through doubtful and risky practices and domestic manufacturing doesn't know about China (and oh, hi, automobile industry and banks, which Obama has been propping up all the time, sadly enough in my opinion.). The only place where you might have a point is conventional energy. I believe in peak oil and all that, so my prejudice sees a different thing, BUT assuming you don't (and you believe in infinite plenty and plenty like Cabot did about cod back in the 1700s), then yes, I could see how Obama's policies could constitute a political conspiracy to destroy one of the country's economic sectors (for which, assuredly, the motive is that Hollywood is bribing him because solar power just sounds so much cooler.)
I do believe in peak oil, and I believe the world's oil production has already peaked....and that makes Obama's proposals to limit production growth initiatives, tax the hell out of the industry, destroy coal, and advance non-economic (solar, wind) technologies even that much more idiotic.
So you believe that production is inevitably going to decline yet you don't want to transition? I don't understand. Even with coal (and disregarding all the destructive environmental consequences used to extract it such as strip mining and nevermind the firing of it itself), we're operating on a limited timeline. Eventually, conventional energy sources will be obsolete as growth in the population meets decline in resources. It won't matter how many incentives you put into finding the oil; if you believe in peak oil, then you know at a certain point there will just be no more oil to be found (at least that is my understanding). So are you saying we should just push everything back a generation or two and let them worry about it?
If the guy that can make your deal, give you a raise or fire you wants to tell Obama jokes, you will muster a laugh. You will not stand up and ask "do you know how ridiculous you sound, you out of touch old fart?".
You are framing the issue wrong and you don't understand peak oil. Low cost energy is the key to economic growth. Any move to raise the cost of energy sets us back economically in a big way. Virtually every move Obama has made, or indicated to be making, suggests higher energy costs. Period. Taxes, permitting, carbon nonsense, etc -- they all point to higher energy prices. There is no intermediate bridge to the next energy solution. Thermodynamics and econonics are a b!tch. Because of that, you must support conventional hydrocarbon production efforts in order to bridge us to the next answer. Instead of investing in technologies to improve the use of conventional resources (coal-to-liquids, CNG, carbon capture, electric cars, coal gasification, etc), Obama's answer to the energy issue is to raise the price of the low cost energy up to the price of the non-economic forms of energy (solar, wind). How does that make sense? It simply does not. We can't lose sight of the ultimate goal -- which is low cost energy and the higher standard of living that accompanies it.
oil companies have made a bundle of money the last four years, energy was relatively cheap, how much investing have they poured into alternative energy. There is no incentive for these guys to invest in alternative sources unless they are pushed.
Yes, and they made virtually no money over other stretches of time. Weak argument. Microsoft made a lot of money over the last four years -- should we tell them to invest in alternative energy too? How about Apple and Wal-Mart? While we are at it, Krispy Kreme is a profitable venture -- should they be forced to pour money into solar technologies? Why is it Exxon's job to invest in alternative energy? Last time I checked, they were not an alternative energy company. Please advise. Or are you suggesting the government once again intrude into the free enterprise system and mandate what a private sector company does with its own resources? That little experiment worked pretty well for Barakka Dukakka with General Motors, huh? Whoops.
