That Atlantic article in the OP was interesting. I'm not sure I believe in his 9.9%, as a problem, at least. To make the numbers fit his storyline, well, read the slate link if you care about the way the numbers were chosen.
But then it reminded me of the
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... s/361631/ Atlantic article making the case with reparations for treatment of blacks. Again, facts were secondary to getting the storyline right... Hmmm. I sense a pattern.
Now, I don't read the Atlantic. I think maybe 5 articles over the years, linked from something I was reading. It's very clear it wasn't written for me. It's not a publication I would subscibe to, and I don't have a lot of experience with them, so if what I am about to say offends you, feel free to assume I haven't a clue.
But it's wierd, that a magazine, seemingly associated with class and "think pieces", would so consistently publish stories that are so well put together, with so many resources available, yet none of them stand up to the least scrutiny. It's just storyline, plus factoid (that may or may not be accurate), plus reference to someone agreeing (who may or may not actually agree), followed by more of the same. Enough information to emote at the problem effectively, but nothing like the information necessary to even understood the problem. Just enough to feel like I have a grip on the situation, and know who to blame.
That's just journalism. There's never enough time or space to tell the whole story, and most folks would lose interest. But this is different. The resources are there, it's an expensive, upscale, classy, magazine. Their subscibe demographics are astounding. I looked them up. Average age of subscriber is 50, more women than men, and this is strange, the women who read the Atlantic out earn the men who read the Atlantic by 11.5%. the publisher has a few other magazines where women subcribers out earn men, but Cosmo and Allure have much younger subscribers with far less money. Women who subscribe to the Atlantic have a median household income of $86k. More than the subscribers of Architectural Digest.
So, what we have is a magazine blaming the 9.9%, sold to the 9.9%. As a successful business model. How can that possibly work?!?
Well, it wouldn't work for me. I wouldn't buy a magazine blaming me for drying up all the opportunity for everyone who has failed to succeed as I have. I wouldn't buy a magazine telling me that, and certainly not actually look into the details and try to get a grip on the problems. But they have 1.25M subscribers who are doing just that, so they must be doing it for reasons I wouldn't, in ways I wouldn't.
(And this is where I get into unsubstantiated speculation, feel free to pick this apart.)
Usually, when I can't figure out why someone is doing something so stupid/destructive/mysterious, it helps to reframe the question into what they think they are doing. People tend to be able to justify their actions to themselves, so tapping into that can help explain their actions. Most nonessential things most people buy, are bought for social signalling.
So, I propose that the Atlantic sells some of their magazines to people who buy it for the published humble bragging. As in "I crushed it so hard, the altantic says there's nothing left for the little people. I RULE!" But this has to be a tiny minority. And it wouldn't attract well to do women, their bread and butter.
So let's just look at them. The stereotypical subscribers of the Atlantic. Upper middle class with aspirations, or lower upper class. Middle to upper management and skilled professionals, and spouses, in urban areas, neoliberals, Clinton supporters, rather than Bernie supporters. What are they getting?
I think they are getting a monthly guide to social correctness, combined with a cultural status symbol. Bear with me. The articles are long on details of storyline, with good guys and bad guys clearly labeled. But solutions are either completely unmentioned, silly, or blatently unworkable. So the customers want to have enough information to know how to feel about the issue, so they know how to react when it comes up in conversation, and know enough to contribute a detail here or there, but not enough to disrupt the cocktail party with insight. Middle management level of information.
Social and political awareness, without any information to contradict the shallow knowledge base of its subscribers, and a stong association with class and wealth. Exactly what an aspirational accountant needs to know to say the right things at parties, and nothing more.
Now the Atlantic isn't the first to work this business model. I first noticed it, listening to NPR. Selling the feeling of being informed, while not providing enough information to lose anyone. It needs a good name. We use infotainment for the TMZ style of journalism. We need a good word for those who sell the feelings of being informed, without the information. Your suggestions are appreciated.
But as near as I can tell, this 9.9% issue is only good until the July issue of Atlantic monthly.
) but I know better now, since that has never gone well for me 
