That could be part of it. If you are convinced by the Picketty idea where the rich have captured a greater part of the economy and rig the game in their favor (I am personally convinced by this) then you can see why things don't seem to be getting better for most Americans. But why do those same American's not focus their rage against the 1%? I think racism plays a role. And certainly, some members of the 1% stoke these flames.
"You are patiently standing in the middle of a long line stretching toward the horizon, where the American Dream awaits. But as you wait, you see people cutting in line ahead of you. Many of these line-cutters are black—beneficiaries of affirmative action or welfare. Some are career-driven women pushing into jobs they never had before. Then you see immigrants, Mexicans, Somalis, the Syrian refugees yet to come. As you wait in this unmoving line, you’re being asked to feel sorry for them all. You have a good heart. But who is deciding who you should feel compassion for? Then you see President Barack Hussein Obama waving the line-cutters forward. He’s on their side. In fact, isn’t he a line-cutter too? How did this fatherless black guy pay for Harvard? As you wait your turn, Obama is using the money in your pocket to help the line-cutters. He and his liberal backers have removed the shame from taking. The government has become an instrument for redistributing your money to the undeserving. It’s not your government anymore; it’s theirs."
I think this sentiment explains why so many poor whites are against programs that would ultimately help them. To them, minorities are the competition in a zero sum game.
LOL The night of the election, I put cat food in two bowls labeled "trump" and "clinton." The cat ate out of the trump bowl first.
My cat was never was a politician, never interviewed politicians, never administered a poll, never ran a campaign. And yet he accurately predicted the results of the last US presidential election, while nearly all news outlets, professional polls, and political "experts" failed to do so.
So did this guy do any serious research into how people chose their careers? Did he work as a career counselor? Has he done extensive interviews with people at the top of their field?
Oh no, he's apparently qualified to talk about this because he wrote Dilbert.
Owners of websites and social networks are afraid of moderation. Because it takes time and money. Because the trolls will complain. Because you can't be neutral. But you've got to do it some how.
If you open an online community and neglect to moderate, you're just giving the most extreme people of any side a free megaphone. It's irresponsible. If you're not going to moderate, turn comments off.
For social networks - How do you do it at scale? You don't. Give groups the tools to govern themselves. Let users control what they see. Eliminate the timeline, and free for all commenting on posts. I don't care if it hurts your engagement metrics. Don't like it? Then I support legislation to regulate you.