Originally Posted by chuckg
Historically, there used to be a compact between corporations and labor so that the so-called rising tide floated all boats.
Historically, it was not a compact, but became so when the federal government forced corporations to submit to collective bargaining. The historical relation between wages and labor, in its purest sense, was due to market forces. But governments, also historically, have always managed to distort that relationship, sometimes in favor of corporations, sometimes in favor of labor, but always in favor of government. And, historically, when market forces were least distorted by government, the so-called rising tide did float many boats. But rising tides also can sink boats. And "the market" is not totally comparable to the tides.
That compact, for lack of a better term, ended in the 80s when Mr. reagan took on the air traffic controllers and started the union-busting ideology that is so prevalent today.
Mr. Reagan was closer to FDR regarding unions than the union leaders of today. Reagan took on GOVERNMENT employee unions in the air traffic controllers controversy. FDR, the great labor union hero, though he aided private sector unions, was against having government unions. And with very good reasons, as exemplified by the fiscal and operational problems that federal and local governments have today because of union contracts.
Just imagine if there were no unions; non-union employees would be getting slave wages like the 30s and 40s, there would be no upward mobility, etc., etc.
Before industries or corporations became heavily unionized, their worker's wages were usually better than what they would have had if they were employed elsewhere. The so-called Industrial Revolution was a tide that lifted many boats. And the industrial corporations after that, even before unionization, paid well above average wages. The idea that their compensation pre-union were "slave wages" is nonsense.
And upward mobility was a mark of American culture long before industrial or corporate unionization. The mobility was driven by entrepreneurship, innovation, ambition, and a free society which permitted it. It was not that those things depended on the existence of unions, it was, rather, that unions depended on those things in order to have a prosperous base in which to organize. If anything, the nexus between unions and government creates a status quo in which growth and mobility are less possible.
The greed of Wall Street and their co-conspirators in Congress have, basically, wiped out the American Dream for the majority of Americans. Corporations want more work and output for reduced wages (remember, the Cost of Living goes up, wages stay stagnant).
As far as there is really such a thing as "the American Dream," beyond the desire to be free from overbearing government, you may be on to something. When it is left to government to define and create what that dream is, it is then within the government's power to redefine or "wipe out" that dream. If the connection between Wall Street and the Federal Government (which definitely includes the President, not just the Congress) is so close that they start to become indistinguishable, they can dole out whatever dreams they wish.
If corporations and their Wall Street financiers were restricted to pure market forces, their income would be based on actual production, consumption, and competition. Henry Ford did not invent the automobile, but he understood that profits were made by sales, and he created assembly line production to mass manufacture his cars, and knew that his workers as well as the rest of the mythic "middle class" had to be able to afford to buy them. So, well before unions took hold, as much as they did, the American standard of living was that much more enhanced. This can be said about the industrialists who preceded him, some of the most successful of them being called "Robber Barons." But the least successful needed government regulations to protect them against their "monopolystic" competitors. So the government/corporate nexus began in earnest and has grown into the tightly controlled government/big business complex we have today.
And, like the FDR administration which solidified that complex and who strove in the face of a depression to keep prices and wages up by government spending with creation of non-market make-work projects and highly coercive and restrictive regulations on the private sector (including the union beloved NLRB), the progressive and quasi-progressive administrations which have followed, became deeper and deeper intertwined with the private sector "economy" to the point of being a de-facto CEO. And the continuation of government intrusions to "fix" economic downturns by propping up failing corporate giants and trying to maintain union presence, all rather than letting the market naturally cure itself, furthers government power and control, but diminishes market forces into obsolescence.
So now we have, not the military/industrial complex which Eisenhower warned us against, but the much more pervasive government/big business complex. And this monstrosity cannot be abandoned by progressive government, since it is its child. It must, somehow be nourished and maintained.
Wall Street must be bailed out by government. Big automotive companies and their union employees must be bailed out by government. Trillions of stimulus money unconnected to market forces must be infused into the pockets of the banks. Unions must be propped up by the NLRB attempting to deny a big corporation from moving to a right to work state.
And if all else fails, do the old slight-of-hand. Pretend you are for protecting the "middle class" while permitting and encouraging a huge influx of low skilled illegal immigrants who will work for lower wages. Of course, the government prefers not to mention that wage stuff. It talks about compassion for the poor, and rails against a straw man racism against latinos. The hope must be, somehow, that the corporations will actually loose-up some of that stimulus money to hire the immigrants at a more profitable low wage, thus increase employment statistics, and maybe provide some more wage-earners to fund future Social Security payouts. That it will create more SS recipients in the future is merely a growing bubble that some future administrations will deal with.
Of course, this underlies a realization that the inflationary cycle created by government spending and growing social transfers has given us an unsustainable "trajectory." That was also rather quietly admitted when the government forced the auto unions to redo contracts and start out with lower pay and less generous benefits for new workers when it briefly owned GM and Chrysler. It's peculiar that the government doesn't recognize it also should do the downsizing that it made the auto companies do.
And, of course, there is the biennial call for higher minimum wages. But the government Wonks aren't dummies. They know that's mostly counterproductive. But, they rely on business to adjust by raising prices, or cutting costs, or eliminating jobs, or doing those things with more robotic production. In the meanwhile, the government looks like it is trying to help the poor. And, of course, unions love rising minimum wages since they become a base mark from which their wages should rise.
So, government "fixing" of economic problems mostly leads to the inflated cost of living that you don't like, and, along with efforts to level societal inequities, leads to a shrinking of the so-called middle class. And, because big business is forced to downsize its workforce, more of the profits will go to the CEO's.
Tell me if you are better off now than before 2006 or so??? The migration of jobs overseas started in the 70s and we are left with sports and dancin' with the stars; that's America's output now; entertainment above all things to keep our eyes off the ball. Yes, we have the best government money can buy…
|