Online discourse about AI and American jobs continues to show worry. There is an overall negative sentiment, specifically among 50- to 60-year-olds and those in blue-collar positions.

Recent economic studies indicate negative sentiment is likely to continue as workers fear AI displacement in the workforce. This will likely extend beyond the cited demographics as more people consider the implications of AI on jobs. Several industries beyond blue-collar are feeling AI’s impact on the workforce.

• The automotive sector led in job cuts, with Tesla slashing 14,000 jobs. This adds to a total of 14,373 for the month and 20,189 for the year, a 108% increase from last year.
• Education jobs followed with 8,092 cuts in April, totaling 17,892 for the year. This is up 635% from the previous year due to budgetary constraints and recruitment issues.
• The Healthcare industry saw 5,826 job cuts in April, totaling 17,218 for the year, a 41% decrease from last year.
• Technology jobs saw 47,436 cuts this year, which is a startling 58% decrease from last year.

• The media industry reported 8,091 cuts this year, down 29%. However, the news subset is up 12% at 2,184 cuts.

While not all job cuts were directly a result of AI innovations, many view AI as one more threat among many for jobs. People worry about the economy and other factors, which worsen fears that companies may opt to save money with automation.

American Fears About AI Displacement

There is a sense of inevitability and concern in most discussions about job cuts and AI. People are apprehensive about the rapid pace of artificial intelligence development and its potential to automate jobs that were previously considered secure. This includes jobs requiring higher education or specialized training.

Conversations often reflect concerns about technological unemployment, with some expressing anxiety about being forced into early retirement before they have had a chance to secure financial stability.

Sentiment Trends

Feelings about AI’s impact on employment trends are largely negative. Many Americans worry that AI and automation could push them out of the labor market prematurely. This would damage their ability to save adequately for retirement.

Displacement anxieties are especially noticeable among middle-aged workers who feel they are too young to retire but too old to re-enter the job market if displaced. These discussions frequently underscore the lack of adequate retraining and reskilling opportunities, which exacerbates fears.

Demographic Patterns

Some demographic patterns are also evident in these discussions. Older workers, particularly those in their 50s and early 60s, are more vocal about their concerns, specifically regarding AI.

Older workers often highlight the difficulty in finding new employment at a later stage in their careers. They also mention the inadequacy of their retirement savings in the face of unexpected job loss.

Younger demographics seem to express a different kind of concern. Their focus is more on long-term job security and the career disruptions AI might cause. Many younger workers are optimistic about their ability to adapt to new working conditions. However, they are still somewhat anxious, especially amid larger economic worries.

Geographically, workers in regions with a higher concentration of manufacturing and traditionally blue-collar jobs express more anxiety. Discussions in more tech-centric regions might reflect a more balanced or even optimistic view, with some anticipating that new job categories will emerge as AI technology evolves.

Withing the negative discussion, there also exists a minority viewpoint that sees AI as an opportunity rather than a threat. This group usually consists of those who work in tech or have seen the benefits of AI integration in the workplace. They argue AI could enhance productivity, create new job opportunities, and improve work-life balance.

On Friday, June 14, the House of Representatives passed a measure to increase the age of Selective Service by one year, to include all men from ages 18 to 26. The proposal also includes additional guidelines like automatic enrollment and women being drafted. Analysis of public sentiment reveals a complex landscape of opinions, as citizens debate the implications of these changes. In the aftermath of the measure, there was an observable dip in sentiment towards the military.

Increased Draft Age

The proposal to increase the draft age limit from 25 to 26 generated considerable debate. Supporters argue this change is in alignment with the evolving maturity and life stages of young Americans. They say that, by 26, young people are often more settled and better able to contribute to military service if needed.

Conversely there are concerns about the fairness and practicality of this shift. Critics highlight worries about disrupting the careers and personal lives of those establishing themselves professionally or starting families.

There is also a sentiment that extending the draft age could inadvertently discriminate against young adults who are more focused on higher education or starting their own businesses during these formative years.

Automatic Enrollment

While registering for the Selective Service is already mandatory for men, automatic enrollment as part of the Selective Service changes has sparked a heated discourse about personal freedom and governmental control. Proponents argue automatic enrollment would ensure a more equitable system, preventing any potential bias or administrative errors that might occur with self-registration.

Some believe it is efficient and can ensure no one is overlooked, thus strengthening national preparedness. However, this viewpoint is met with significant resistance from those who see it as an overreach of government power.

Opponents of automatic enrollment feel strongly that it infringes on individual rights and autonomy, making the idea particularly contentious. Many people worry about removing young Americans’ individual sovereignty. They also express fears about how automatic data collection might be used beyond military purposes.

Drafting Women

The possibility of including women in the draft has generated one of the most polarized discussions. Advocates for female inclusion argue from a standpoint of gender equality, noting that women have been serving in various military roles for years.

Those in favor of drafting women say including them would respect the principle of equal responsibility in civic duties. This view is often held by those who believe women can contribute just as effectively as men in various military and support roles.

Conversely, there are strong voices raising concerns about the potential physical and psychological burdens Selective Service would place on women – especially those with young families or health considerations. Some also argue from a traditionalist perspective, suggesting conscription should remain male-only due to historical precedents and societal roles.

Reporting and polling services continually address election fraud as a worrying issue for American voters. Sentiment about election integrity and election turmoil in the U.S. is notably divided and charged with apprehension. Some reputable polling services indicate as much as 66% of Americans fear election cheating could impact the 2024 general election. MIG Reports analysis confirms Americans are indeed overwhelmingly worried about election integrity.

Overall Analysis

Election integrity concerns often range from potential system manipulations to various forms of fraud and cheating. This apprehension is particularly pronounced among Trump supporters—however, they are not alone in their worries.

Those who assert the 2020 election was rife with irregularities and fraudulent activity, believe it contributed to President Joe Biden’s victory. They cite incidents involving electronic voting machines, mail-in ballots, other anomalies in the process, and allegations between political figures and institutions as evidence of systemic corruption.

This prevalent fear underscores the deep mistrust within the electorate regarding the fairness and legitimacy of elections. It also reflects broader anxieties about the integrity of democratic processes.

Election Integrity Views are Ideological

Online discourse on social media and other public forums show significant political polarization about election integrity issues.

Conservative or Right Leaning Views

• Many believe in widespread election fraud during the 2020 election and potentially the upcoming 2024 election.
• There are concerns over mail-in ballots, electronic voting machines, and voter fraud.
• Conservatives view the current administration and Democratic figures as undermining election integrity.
• Many on the right believe the 2020 election was rigged and future elections are at risk without stricter measures.

Liberal or Left Leaning Views

• Liberals usually dismiss claims of widespread election fraud as misinformation or partisan strategy.
• They emphasize a lack of credible evidence for extensive election tampering, despite a lack of investigation, including by SCOTUS, in refusing to hear election fraud cases.
• Voters on the left focus on preserving democratic norms by protecting voting rights and ensuring broad voter participation.
• They see election fraud rhetoric as a tactic to justify restrictive voting laws that could disenfranchise minorities.

Demographic Patterns

• Those who believe election fraud is a serious issues are typically older, rural, more conservative, support former President Trump, are skeptical of mainstream media, and prefer alternative news sources.
• Those who say election fraud is not real tend to be younger, urban, progressive, they trust traditional media, emphasize evidence-based arguments, and advocate for rule of law.

Governor Kathy Hochul's handling of the NYC subway system, including a possible face mask ban, is upsetting voters in New York. Online reactions reveal strong opposition, frustration, and concern about her decisions. Conversations seem to suggest a vote of no confidence from many New Yorkers. Many people call for more consistent, health-conscious, and forward-thinking leadership to guide the city's future.

Recent headlines suggest Gov. Hochul may soon impose a face mask ban on the subway, which is receiving blowback from both liberals and conservatives. Left leaning voters view a ban as a disgraceful move, especially in the context of New York’s substantial suffering during COVID-19. These critics argue masks are essential for public safety, not just from COVD, but many diseases and pollution.

Right leaning voters are more likely to criticize Hochul for hypocrisy. They say mask mandates during COVID, which normalized masks in public, have now led to surges in crime four years later. They say masks are not and were never needed and Hochul and other leaders are now facing the consequences of reckless mandates over COVID fears.

• Gov. Hochul’s approval hovers in the low to mid 40% range with some spikes in discussion volume, which tend to correlate with a drop in sentiment.

Discussions Around a Mask Ban

Many New Yorkers are vehemently opposed to the proposed mask ban, perceiving it as a threat to public health. They say they are especially worried for the aging and immunocompromised who depend on the subway system. This sentiment is particularly acute among those who still view COVID as an ongoing pandemic. They suggest attempting to lower crime rates with a mask ban is an egregious disregard for their safety.

Others, however, feel banning masks is necessary to curb criminal activities where perpetrators use masks to conceal their identities. This group supports a potential ban and believes it could deter crime on the subway system and create a more secure environment for all passengers.

Pausing NYC Congestion Pricing

Many New Yorkers express dissatisfaction with her governance decisions, arguing they reveal a poor understanding of public needs. The ire directed at Gov. Hochul often touches on congestion pricing, which was intended to reduce traffic congestion in lower Manhattan and finance public transit improvements. Many criticize her decision to pause or scrap the congestion pricing plan, viewing it as a capitulation to special interests and suburban voters at the expense of city residents.

Some contrast Hochul's choice to paus congestion pricing with examples from other cities, like London, where congestion pricing has been highly successful in improving traffic conditions and public transit. The halt has led to feelings of betrayal among those who believe congestion pricing is crucial for reducing pollution, easing traffic, and funding essential transit improvements.

Critics believe with the governor backing away from congestion pricing, the financial stability of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) is at risk. They say this could potentially lead to a downgrade in its credit rating and deferred improvements to the subway system. The general sentiment is one of exasperation with the short-sightedness and lack of commitment to long-term urban planning.

Other Issues Impacting Sentiment

Among Hochul's vocal critics, there is fierce and often derogatory language, reflecting broader dissatisfaction with her policies and liberal governance style. People accuse her of authoritarianism and failed leadership, calling her a "lying destructive tyrant" and drawing parallels to repressive regimes.

Not Protecting the Working Class

New Yorkers call her out for a perceived inconsistency in policy making. They argue her claims of protecting working-class New Yorkers, increased payroll taxes in place of congestion pricing will be equally, if not more, harmful.

People complain about taxes on large businesses, which would bear the brunt of higher taxes and trickle down to employees and consumers. This, people argue, would hurt the same demographics the governor says she wants to shield.

Increasing Crime in New York

Further complicating Hochul’s public image is her stance on crime and gun violence statistics. Her administration faces backlash for leniency on crime and law enforcement policies. Critics argue her policies on bail reform and parole contribute to higher crime rates.

Voters blame increased lawlessness on her administration. Calls for stricter law enforcement and reforms to reverse these policies have been loud and consistent, with demands for her to intervene more decisively in criminal justice issues.

Deprioritizing Suburban New Yorkers

Some upstate New Yorkers feel disproportionally burdened by policies seen as biased towards urban interests. They voice resentment towards the continuous flow of resources from upstate to downstate projects, including MTA improvements, without proportional benefits.

Identity Politics

Racial and identity politics also animate much of the discussion. Accusations of condescension and racism have surfaced, particularly in relation to her comments and policies that some view as patronizing towards minority groups. These sentiments create a complicated portrait of her as a leader struggling to balance progressive values with practical governance.

Fulton County DA Fani Willis and her boyfriend-turned-special-prosecutor Nathan Wade are making news again in the wake of Wade’s recent CNN interview. Following the indefinite pause in Willis’s RICO case against former president Trump, Wade appeared on CNN with Kaitlan Collins, causing a kerfuffle over the timeline of his relationship with Willis.

In a clip Collins posted on X, Nathan Wade struggles to respond to her question about when his romantic relationship with Willis began. After a short interruption by Wade’s team, he returned to the interview refusing to answer the question. This clip has garnered various reactions of incredulity, ridicule, and disgust from voters.

My exchange with Nathan Wade tonight on the timeline of his romantic relationship with District Attorney Fani Willis — including an interruption from a member of his team as he was answering when it began and when it ended. pic.twitter.com/S5AJzdsmOC

— Kaitlan Collins (@kaitlancollins) June 13, 2024

Nathan Wade's team interrupting him during the interview is raising doubts and suspicions among the public about the credibility of Wade, Willis, and even CNN for how it aired the interview. These discussions are adding to the ongoing speculations of hidden manipulations and collusion between Democrats, prosecutors, and the media.

Many suggest Wade's representation on CNN confirms inadequacies in both his and Willis’s abilities as legal professionals. There are also allegations about the two jointly strategizing on the draft and process of the case, feeding the narrative of collusion and undue influence.

Views of DA Fani Willis

Most voter opinions of Fani Willis seem to derive from their politics with people either condemning her or celebrating her for her perseverance. However, the general sentiment towards Willis is highly negative among most voters.

Voters often believe she is engaged in corruption and pursuing politicized prosecutions. They reference her alleged involvement in serious cases of graft, voter manipulation, and witness intimidation. Some also say Willis was part of a plot to intimidate witnesses in the concurrent trial against the rapper Young Thung.

The combinations of a Willis-Wade affair, alleged corruption, the indefinite pause on Trump’s RICO case, and outlandish proceedings in the Young Thug trial have served to further erode DA Willis’s reputation.

Allegations of Corruption

Most of Willis’s criticism comes from a belief that Trump’s RICO indictment was politically orchestrated. However, while some view Willis as an aggressive figure with political motivations, others see her as a crusader for justice in challenging Trump's alleged misdeeds. The news about her alleged involvement in election fraud and money laundering has added fuel to the public discourse. Her supporters stick to the notion of a political victimization plot against her, while opponents find the allegations as evidence for unethical behavior.

There are multiple accusations about her visit to the White House prior to Trump's indictment, suggesting collusion. This also raises concerns among certain voters of potential inappropriate influence by the Department of Justice (DOJ). Also, the fact that both Willis and Special Counsel Jack Smith may be disqualified from their respective cases has split the public's view further. Some see it as an affirmation of the law working properly, while others condemn it as an example of systemic corruption.

Willis as a Political Pawn

Some view Willis as a pawn in a larger political game, tied to figures like Joe Biden. Her impartiality is often questioned, with several users perceiving her actions against Trump as politically motivated rather than issues of criminality.

There is some mention of Hunter Biden's trial, comparing it to Willis and other public figures involved in prosecuting certain political figures. Some say Willis, Alvin Bragg, Jack Smith, and Leticia James are all products of elite law school DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) programs. This, they say, increases the likelihood of their prosecutions being politically motivated.

Many voters seem to believe that—while Fani Willis is likely a corrupt politician—she is a small fish in a larger political game being played at every level of the court system.

On June 12, news outlets reported on a Russian submarine arriving in Cuba. American reactions to Russia’s subsequent military exercises conducted off the east coast of the U.S. are significantly polarized. They reflect the high-tension surrounding Russia-U.S. relations and their wider global implications.

Two themes are prominent in voter discussions: geopolitical anxieties and domestic political divisions.

Geopolitical Anxieties

• Americans are concerned about escalating geopolitical tensions, especially due to Russia's military exercises near American soil.
• Russia's military actions are seen as a significant geopolitical statement linked to its invasion of Ukraine.
• There are discussions about potential U.S. responses, including using frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine, which could cause inflation.
• There is widespread worry about China aligning with Russia and escalating tensions further.

• Many voters have divergent views on whether Russia and China are aligning against the U.S. or reflecting global ambivalence towards U.S. foreign policy.

Domestic Political Divisions

• President Biden's foreign policy on Russia and Ukraine is highly contentious, with critics alleging it provokes Russia and potentially involves corruption.
• Supporters emphasize the complexity of international relations and past U.S. interventions.
• There is widespread critique of U.S. interventionist policies by both Democratic and Republican administrations, with claims of lost moral high ground.
• Discussions on Russia's military exercises reveal deeper anxieties and divisions in American society, linking international affairs with domestic politics.

Other Discussions

• Some voters raise concerns about the economic impact of potential conflicts, highlighting risks posed to the global economy and speculating about possible retaliatory sanctions.
• There were also discussions about the role of NATO, with some questioning its effectiveness. Others defend the alliance's necessary role in maintaining balance.
• Given the historical context of U.S.-Russian-Cuban relations, the fact that Russia’s naval vessels arrived in Cuba sparked significant apprehension among some Americans.

Sentiment Analysis

Skepticism and concern seem to dominate American feelings about potential escalations with Russia. There is a generally anxious mood regarding the recent military drills and the potential threat from adversaries. However, due to the complex and nuanced nature of the topic, sentiments scatter widely across the spectrum. Positive sentiments are largely expressed with dismissive attitudes, while negative sentiments are more common among those critical of the Biden administration's foreign policy.

Since Governor Gavin Newsom enacted a $20-per-hour mandate for fast food employees in April, California has lost 10,000 jobs and numerous franchises closed locations. MIG Reports analysis show distinct disapproval from Californians in their discussion of Newsom.

• In 2024, Gavin Newsom’s approval on the economy is trending downward, currently at 35%, which is 7 points below his six-month average of 42%.

Economic Issues

• Public sentiment is highly negative about the wage mandate's impact on fast-food jobs in California, blaming Governor Newsom's policies.
• Californians are discussing their desire for lower taxes as the current tax rates as detrimental to businesses and leading to job losses like the 10,000 fast-food employees.
• Newsom is perceived as ineffective in managing the state's economy and addressing the needs of lower-income families, leading to feelings of disenfranchisement.
• Concerns include increasing crime rates, high costs of living, and more people leaving the state. These make it difficult for many to afford essentials like fuel, food, utilities, and medication.

Fiscal Policy

Governor Newsom’s name is mentioned frequently and mostly negatively. Most Californians criticize him for how he handles the state's budget and transforming a surplus into a deficit.

Some voters interpret California's large budget deficit as contributing to the loss of 10,000 fast food employees. There isn't a specific emphasis on the wage mandate, but complaints are often tied back to overall economic mismanagement.

Many California residents complain about the cost of living, prices for gas and food, and a decrease in their savings. They directly point to the governor's policies as a reason for these changes.

Overall, Californians seem to distrust Governor Newsom, which seems largely due to his financial decisions. People are voicing their frustrations about the state's budget deficit and the perceived negative impact of Newsom's economic policies on their personal finances.

Sentiment about the overall economic health of the state is negative. Voters express concerns over job loss, increased living costs, and overall poor management of California's economy.

There is also a sense of exasperation, as people feel their concerns and hardships are not being addressed. They urge Newsom to "sit down” and get in touch with the people.

People are frustrated and dissatisfied with Newsom's leadership and many call for fresh leaders who can manage the economy better.

Recent economic data from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis went viral showcasing economic disparities for Americans between the Trump and Biden administrations. MIG Reports analyzed voter commentary to identify sentiment patterns and reaction trends.

What Americans are Saying

When comparing economic strains under the Biden administration versus the Trump administration, it's important to consider consumer prices, household net worth, and discussions involving taxes.

Consumer prices as measured by the Consumer Price Index, a measure of the average change over time in the prices paid by consumers for goods and services, have illustrated a rising trend with inflation. Between the two administrations, the American public has witnessed a noticeable shift in inflation rates under Biden.

As for household net worth, which is a measure of the value of all assets, minus the total of all liabilities—there is a mixed view. Changes in household net worth are not only determined by economic policies but also influenced by a variety of other factors like changes in property values, stock market performance, savings rates, debt levels, and more.

Generally, the housing market has seen significant increases, as has the stock market. However, disparity remains, as not all Americans hold assets in the form of property or stocks. Regardless of individual situations, both the housing and stock markets performed better during Trump’s administration.

Americans are also discussing day-to-day costs and are vocal about their tax obligations under Biden's administration. There are common concerns about taxation fairness, particularly concerning churches that engage in political expression, mega-churches, and big corporations. By contrast, Trump was often touted as the president for deregulation and tax cuts, particularly with the 2017 tax reform which lowered corporate tax rates. However, critics argued this increased wealth disparity.

Household Net Worth

During Trump's presidency, some Americans expressed optimism about lower taxes and the benefits to business owners and wealthy investors. Trump’s promise to reduce taxes was welcomed by those who view it as an incentive for economic growth and personal wealth accumulation. Some commend wealthy business owners under Trump's leadership, acknowledging their roles in job creation and charity donations.

Under Biden's presidency, discussions around wealth have also centered on taxation but with a different tone. People express concerns about increased taxes and their impact on personal and corporate wealth. This sentiment is particularly pronounced among the wealthy and business owners who claim they are unfairly targeted by higher tax rates.

The discourse also includes those championing higher taxation for the rich as a means of wealth redistribution. Some argue the wealthy and corporations should pay more taxes to fund government projects and programs that benefit the wider populace.

Many American voters express views about illegal immigrants and their impact on the economy. Some support amnesty for illegal immigrants, arguing they could contribute more substantially to America's tax revenue, however a consistently growing number of Americans disagree.

This study of online conversations gives a sense of the current mood and concerns of Americans. Perspectives for Americans of their economy under Biden and Trump consider and reflect multiple factors, including consumer price index, household net worth, day-to-day living expenses, and taxes. Notably, former President Trump gives Americans more confidence in all aspects.

Voter reactions to Steve Bannon being ordered to jail are divided but with severe negativity, much like opinions on Donald Trump's conviction. The rhetoric varies sharply, with a considerable number viewing the order as a red flag for the state of democracy in the U.S., while others believe it's necessary for the government to maintain its authority.

Discussion Trends

Critics of Jailing Bannon

• Critics of the order to jail Bannon view it as political persecution. They believe Bannon is a pawn in a political game orchestrated by the Biden administration.
• Comments accuse Biden's administration of using power to silence and jail political opponents. They equate these actions to tactics used by dictators and communist regimes.

• Critics see Bannon's indictment as a threat to governance and an attack on free speech. Common phrases include "deep state," "lawfare," and "banana republic," indicating distrust in institutional justice.
• There is a trend of linking this situation to broader conservative grievances. These grievances include perceived infringements on First Amendment and Second Amendment rights.

Those Cheering the Order

• Some view Bannon's indictment as a step towards accountability and upholding the rule of law. This narrative portrays Bannon as challenging institutional authority and jeopardizing democratic norms.
• These views are less visible compared to the critics of the actions taken against Bannon.
  

Rule of Law

A recurring topic within these discussions is the perceived decline of the rule of law in America. While both sides invoke this term, they interpret and apply it differently based on partisan perspectives. Some believe Bannon's punishment upholds the rule of law because he broke the law and must face the consequences just like any citizen.

However, others feel the rule of law is being undermined, contending that Bannon's case is an instance of political persecution rather than a lawful procedure.

There is disparate sentiment depending on a person’s political orientation. However, across the board, there is a shared concern for the health of American democracy and the country's justice system, though opinions on the current state of these institutions vary sharply.

Demographics play a significant role in the polarized viewpoints, with partisan affiliations primarily driving the discourse. Ideological differences aside, there appear to be shared anxieties about the rule of law, democracy, and the use of power in politics—themes that resonate with Americans of all political stripes.