Quote (Thor123422 @ 25 Oct 2020 09:09)
Those things weren't always as susceptible to corporate money. The allowance for greater corporate influence over politics from the courts caused the courts to become more political over time, which in turn allowed them to become more influenced, and allowed more corporate money.
One key factor that didn't allow those things to happen is that anti-trust and anti-competitive laws were enforced more strictly. It's easier for an industry with 3 major players (which is what virtually every industry looks like today) to lobby than it is for an industry for 500 roughly equal players. A minor expenditure for a modern mega-corporation is a back-breaking amount for a single company competing for 2% market share.
This still doesnt provide an argument as to why the emergence of neoliberal think tanks and corporate influence on education and the media should have been conditional on a politicization or "corporatization" of the courts.
The part with the lapse in antitrust enforcement and industries consolidating into a handful of megacorporations is cogent though, I'll give you that. I think I better understand your viewpoint now. Still not sure if I agree or disagree, but I get where you're coming from.
It must still be noted that Democrats (both corporate Democrats and the Bernie wing of the party!) continue to support a lot of these neoliberal/globalist policies which undercut domestic wages.
It's really obvious why wages haven't kept up with productivity (if the minimum wage had kept with worker productivity it would be $22 an hour today, which is why asking for even a $15 minimum wage is a lowball), and it's because of the seemingly ever-escalating of feedback loop of corporate influence.
Eh, there's like 5 or 8 different major factor for the anemic wage growth since the 70s. To the best of my knowledge, economists are still doing active research on this question. "Really obvious why this happens" is not the way I would characterize this issue.
When it comes to the minimum wage, I agree with you in principle, but not on the execution. The cost of living varies wildly between different places in the U.S., a high nationwide minimum wage just doesnt make a lot of sense. With $15/h, you're still working for a starvation wage in San Francisco, while demanding this wage in North Dakota might either kill your job or your employer. I am a supporter of a healthy cost-of-living-adjusted regional minimum wage which is chosen on the upper end of the regionally feasible spectrum. Perhaps $11/h or so in poor rural places, while it can go well above $20/h in Silicon Valley or Manhattan.
Regarding the productivity factor: it has to be kept in mind that productivity didnt grow proportionally across the country. Many rural places just havent kept up with the big cities in this regard, their regional productivity is simply not high enough to make very high minimum wages economically viable. Since the disparity in economic development is reflected in the cost of living, this is yet another argument in favor of a regionally indexed minimum wage.This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Oct 25 2020 04:18am