What's good for ______ is good for the country

A Gallup survey in March 2010 asked about the “health care bill currently being considered by Congress” which was passed soon after. It asked whether the bill would make things better, make no difference, or make things worse for a number of groups and institutions. One was the United States as a whole—39% said it would make things better, 11% said no difference, and 50% worse. Others:

You and your family                               -16

Lower income families                             +28

Middle income families                            -16

Upper income families                             -19

Health insurance companies                        -33

Hospitals                                         -18

Doctors                                           -25

Americans who do not have health insurance today  +38

Pharmaceutical companies                          -15

The numbers are the percent saying better minus the percent saying worse. For example 33% said it would make things better for pharmaceutical companies and 48% said it would make things worse, for 33-48=-15. Then I estimated a multiple regression to predict how people felt about the effect on the US as a whole from their feelings about each of the specific groups. The coefficients:

You and your family                               +.37

Lower income families                             +.08

Middle income families                            +.38

Upper income families                             +.06

Health insurance companies                        -.04

Hospitals                                         +.07

Doctors                                           +.11

Americans who do not have health insurance today  +.07

Pharmaceutical companies                          -.04

A positive coefficient means, in effect, that people think that what's good for the group in question is good for the United States as a whole; a negative coefficient means that what's good for the group in question is bad for the United States (this means you, health insurance companies). Most of the coefficients are positive, but two stand out as much larger than the rest: you and your family and the middle class. The large positive coefficient for “you and your family” is understandable—most of us think that our interests happen to coincide with the interests of humanity. But the coefficient for “middle income families” is just as large. Of course, a lot of people think of themselves as “middle income,” but quite a few think of themselves as lower income. In addition, even people who thought of themselves as well off might think that lower income people deserved a break. But views about whether the bill would be good for lower income people (or people without health insurance) had only a small effect—no more than views about whether it would be good for upper income people.

The public or the polls

Several Gallup polls have asked "If the leaders of our nation followed the views of the public more closely, do you think the nation would be better off, or worse off than it is today?"

             Better   Worse    Same    DK

Oct  1975    66%      15%       9%    9%

Apr  1996    80%      11%            10%

Jan  1999    81%      10%            10%

Sept 2001    75%      18%       4%    3%

Sept 2005    73%      22%       3%    2%

I guess that's to be expected, although the apparent increase in the percent saying "worse" since the 1990s is interesting.  Several of the polls have also asked a slightly different question (to different people--each went to a randomly selected half of the sample):  "If the leaders of our nation followed the views of public opinion polls more closely, do you think the nation would be better off, or worse off than it is today?"

           Better   Worse    Same     DK

Apr 1996    74%      14%             13%

Sept 2001   63%      27%       6%     4%

Sept 2005   61%      33%       3%     3%

Support for following the public and following the polls is closer than I expected--my impression was that "the polls" usually has a negative connotation (following the polls is something that other politicians do).   As with following public opinion, the number thinking it would make the nation worse off seems to increase after 1996. 

Just give me money

In 1951, a Gallup poll asked "Which of these two jobs would you personally prefer a son of yours to take--assuming he is equally qualified:  a skilled laborer's job at $100 a week or a white-collar desk job at $75 a week?"  66% chose the laborer, and 30% chose the desk job, with the rest undecided. 

Of course, "desk job" might be regarded as a bit derogatory--what if they had asked about a specific white-collar job that offered social prestige and non-monetary benefits?  They did, also asking about a choice between "a college professor's job at $4,000 a year or a factory foreman's job at $6,000 a year?"  39% chose the professor and 56% chose the foreman. 

In 2010 dollars, the hypothetical pay comes to $44,000 for the laborer, $33,000 for the desk job, $34,000 for the professor, $50,000 for the foreman.