If you want to help the little man I’m all for it but if it’s more about resenting the rich I’m not down with that at all. If we fall prey to acting out of resentment it will not be long until we are in Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago
As far as wage stagnation, I think that has a whole lot to do with the introduction in mass of women to the workforce.(this may come across misogynistic but I don’t mean it that way). If you view labor as a commodity what happens when you double the abundance of a commodity? The value goes down. From the 50’s to the 80’s we doubled the size of the workforce by integrating women, again not a bad thing but a supply and demand hypothesis would hold true on this. This is kind of off topic but really it’s not. I will disclaim this by saying I am not an economist so I could be completely wrong. I could cite economists who argue both sides of this issue but it just seems logical to me.
For me, it's not a question of resenting the rich. Some have inherited their wealth and although I have more respect and admiration for those who created their own wealth, I do not begrudge anyone of their economic status in life. It's ALL about helping the "little man", my friend. Wealth begets power and absolute power corrupts...absolutely. I'd give credit for the quote but I can't remember who said it.
What chance does a working man like ourselves have against multi billion dollar corporations? Someone invents a product that benefits millions of people. Millions of people buy his product and he is fully entitled to the economic rewards he reaps. This person couldn't possibly market, manufacture and ship his product all by himself, so he hires people to do that for him. Aren't those people entitled also to the fruits of their labor?
As to your analysis on women in the work force, I'll just say that as populations increase, so does the demand for products and services. More labor is needed to produce and/or supply these products and services and it was only a matter of time before women were called upon to take these jobs. I am no economist either, but you may find equally convincing arguments for both supply side and demand side economics.
We are a consumer based economy. Our economy is dependent on people having enough disposable income to afford to purchase goods and services other than just food and shelter. When unions were at their peak post WW II, it was the most vibrant middle class this country has ever seen. Corporate tax rates were 91% during the Eisenhower administration and reduced to 75% with the Kennedy/Johnson administration. These corporations still made billions of dollars and the only difference between now and then is now, they are keeping a much greater share of their profits and relegating stagnant wages to a supply and demand situation. It's a race to the bottom and. at the moment, we're the bottom. As the middle class dissipates, we are faced with the unfortunate situation that causes corporations to say" There are 100 other guys on line who would be grateful to have your job." Trucking may be one of few exceptions, but it is a fact throughout the blue collar labor force. Still, in our industry, the driver shortage is proof positive that these greedy bastards will only give the minimum they deem necessary to put a body in the drivers seat. If they truly cared about working people, wouldn't they offer a compensation package that actually ATTRACTS people to this profession. The money is there, as evidenced by their quarterly statements.
So, to answer your question, it is not at all about resenting anybody. It's all about a fair days pay for a fair days work. It's about giving people something to look forward to on vacations and weekends, besides sitting on the porch with a six pack and a pack of cigarettes. It's about rewarding someone after 40 years of hard work and allowing them the security of a decent retirement without worrying about outliving their money. It's about fairness and decency.
Please excuse my rant and for going off topic. Maltman made me do it.