Both Democrats and Republicans have spent years pitching themselves as champions of the working class, promising economic and social transformations that would improve their lives and put them at the center of national politics.
In one sentence you succinctly listed most things that would be desirable for the working class, I'll quote a portion of the sentence.
"more jobs, stronger economic growth, rising real incomes, decent health care and retirement benefits, attainable housing in a safe neighborhood, quality schools, cheap gas, affordable basics, fair rules for all workers, and lower taxes."
I guess an increase in wages by half would do it for much on your list. A scarcity of workers forcing employers to give good benefits would also help, of course then you get inflation as the goods and services supplied by workers also rises. But by how much. When I do the math labor costs of a big mac aren't a very big proportion, nor of picking vegetables, or of building a house etc. Costs would rise, but would be outpaced by wages.
How do you accomplish a scarcity of workers or a half again increase in wages, we are not a Communist country after all. Numbers are deceiving. Employers already say they can never find workers, unemployment rates are very low, yet 30% of the adult population doesn't work. That's not counting stay at home moms or early retirement.
Around 2 million workers have been deported, I've yet to hear of much increase in wages or benefits, nothing like early covid when wages skyrocketed and people moved to different employers seeking better conditions. Supply and demand works for the labor market. For too long we have only tried to increase supply, either via our borders or by offshoring to low cost countries.
Would it be possible to not give H2A and H2B visas? We have already seen that tariffs didn't really cause any measurable cost to consumers as most increases were absorbed by the manufacturer looking to preserve market share in the US economy. Would we be willing to pay high enough wages with provided living conditions to attract Americans to work ag? We do currently for oil rigs offshore and in the arctic, ag is much easier and safer work.
The working class voter is gettable, the question is will corporate and the 20% be willing to pay the price.
There is an interesting possibility or two here. We might see a successful new party similar to, say, the German AfD. If both parties continue to move outwards, space for a center party might arise. We might start to see incumbents thrown out of office much more rapidly, as was once the case. We are seeing more primary challenges that succeed. Term and age limits on Federal office make some sense, though the term limits usually proposed are a bit short.
Labor as the basis of “working class” is not participating in capitalist wealth creation. All citizens need equity in productive capital ownership and control that comes from prudent risk-taking. In capitalism, labor is an input cost.
That is very simplistic. Most of the people who own homes own them as a result of employment in the capitalist free market.
DC is rightly called The Swamp. I prefer that our economy be handled by capitalists as much as possible, as opposed to a federal government that is worse than incompetent, and which has greatly overstepped its constitutional bounds
Simplistic is the wrong word though most economic truths are simple, it's fundamental. Capitalist success rewards residual claimants - it's why people get rich in Silicon Valley and why we call the free market system "capital-ism."
People own homes because they have income they can leverage by borrowing. That income can come from capital or labor - the capitalist system favors capital over labor and our financial and tax policies have merely amplified this. To not own productive capital is to limit oneself as an input cost.
That's great as far as economic philosophy goes, but capitalism pays the bills.
Money has value only to the extent that there is something to buy (or sell). Nothing sees to the production of goods and services like free market capitalism. That includes houses. You can't buy a house, either with borrowed money or earned money, until there is a house.
We need to be precise in our language. Most people have to work for a living. Therefore, most people are working "class". Using the word class to label people is also incorrect. You are dividing people based on their wealth or lack thereof. Using the word income when delineating between groups of people is more accurate, i.e. lower income, middle income, etc.
By some strange coincidence, the people who want more government in our lives tend to work for the government. More government is better for them, whether they be 'working people' or college educated 'administrators.' And that includes the massive number of NGOs, who get their funding from governments, and then distribute it to alleged nongovernment employees. Yet they know where their paycheck is coming from. That's a big pot, full of social workers, museum staff, teachers, staff of various organizations that 'improve' lives, and of course, public broadcasting.
By some strange coincidence, most of these organizations operate within cities, the only places that have strong democrat support.
In one sentence you succinctly listed most things that would be desirable for the working class, I'll quote a portion of the sentence.
"more jobs, stronger economic growth, rising real incomes, decent health care and retirement benefits, attainable housing in a safe neighborhood, quality schools, cheap gas, affordable basics, fair rules for all workers, and lower taxes."
I guess an increase in wages by half would do it for much on your list. A scarcity of workers forcing employers to give good benefits would also help, of course then you get inflation as the goods and services supplied by workers also rises. But by how much. When I do the math labor costs of a big mac aren't a very big proportion, nor of picking vegetables, or of building a house etc. Costs would rise, but would be outpaced by wages.
How do you accomplish a scarcity of workers or a half again increase in wages, we are not a Communist country after all. Numbers are deceiving. Employers already say they can never find workers, unemployment rates are very low, yet 30% of the adult population doesn't work. That's not counting stay at home moms or early retirement.
Around 2 million workers have been deported, I've yet to hear of much increase in wages or benefits, nothing like early covid when wages skyrocketed and people moved to different employers seeking better conditions. Supply and demand works for the labor market. For too long we have only tried to increase supply, either via our borders or by offshoring to low cost countries.
Would it be possible to not give H2A and H2B visas? We have already seen that tariffs didn't really cause any measurable cost to consumers as most increases were absorbed by the manufacturer looking to preserve market share in the US economy. Would we be willing to pay high enough wages with provided living conditions to attract Americans to work ag? We do currently for oil rigs offshore and in the arctic, ag is much easier and safer work.
The working class voter is gettable, the question is will corporate and the 20% be willing to pay the price.
There is an interesting possibility or two here. We might see a successful new party similar to, say, the German AfD. If both parties continue to move outwards, space for a center party might arise. We might start to see incumbents thrown out of office much more rapidly, as was once the case. We are seeing more primary challenges that succeed. Term and age limits on Federal office make some sense, though the term limits usually proposed are a bit short.
Labor as the basis of “working class” is not participating in capitalist wealth creation. All citizens need equity in productive capital ownership and control that comes from prudent risk-taking. In capitalism, labor is an input cost.
That is very simplistic. Most of the people who own homes own them as a result of employment in the capitalist free market.
DC is rightly called The Swamp. I prefer that our economy be handled by capitalists as much as possible, as opposed to a federal government that is worse than incompetent, and which has greatly overstepped its constitutional bounds
Simplistic is the wrong word though most economic truths are simple, it's fundamental. Capitalist success rewards residual claimants - it's why people get rich in Silicon Valley and why we call the free market system "capital-ism."
People own homes because they have income they can leverage by borrowing. That income can come from capital or labor - the capitalist system favors capital over labor and our financial and tax policies have merely amplified this. To not own productive capital is to limit oneself as an input cost.
That's great as far as economic philosophy goes, but capitalism pays the bills.
Money has value only to the extent that there is something to buy (or sell). Nothing sees to the production of goods and services like free market capitalism. That includes houses. You can't buy a house, either with borrowed money or earned money, until there is a house.
We need to be precise in our language. Most people have to work for a living. Therefore, most people are working "class". Using the word class to label people is also incorrect. You are dividing people based on their wealth or lack thereof. Using the word income when delineating between groups of people is more accurate, i.e. lower income, middle income, etc.
By some strange coincidence, the people who want more government in our lives tend to work for the government. More government is better for them, whether they be 'working people' or college educated 'administrators.' And that includes the massive number of NGOs, who get their funding from governments, and then distribute it to alleged nongovernment employees. Yet they know where their paycheck is coming from. That's a big pot, full of social workers, museum staff, teachers, staff of various organizations that 'improve' lives, and of course, public broadcasting.
By some strange coincidence, most of these organizations operate within cities, the only places that have strong democrat support.
No coincidences!