For over 100 years now, whenever anything comes along that can and should benefit the “not wealthy”, the rich and powerful, along with many who don’t seem to have the thinking skills of an amoeba, start crying that no one will want to work, or the corporations won’t be able to find enough workers, or some other lame fairytale concocted and designed to hold the middle class American down.

The prophecy from the rich has never come to pass. Workers keep taking jobs, corporations keep raking in the bucks, and the wheels of commerce keep turning.

You would think the workers were a lazy bunch just from the way the employers go on about giving anything that’s no cost to the end user.

First, let me state, for the record, that I did not say free. They love to point out there’s no such thing as a free lunch, and they’re right. It has to be paid for. The question becomes, do we want to pay the least amount for the best outcome or pay the most we can and still be in a world of shit? Personally, I’d prefer the former. If we are going to do this, use the best systems and make it as least expensive as possible. For instance, there are 72 countries that have some form of universal healthcare, and not, the United States is not one.

The ACA doesn’t come close to universal healthcare, but it was a good start towards it. If you think it was a good program, you have not witnessed what is possible. That’s how programs work. You implement, operate, analyze, and adjust. If we wait for a perfect plan, we’re setting ourselves up for failure.

But this is not an article about the ACA or healthcare. It’s about wages and the reasons corporations are making sure we, the actual producers of the product that generates revenue.

In the late 20th century, it was still possible for a single wage earner to support a family. They had the income to pay the bills, put food on the table, own a home, and a car or two. Many had lots of toys. My parents belonged to a camping club. There were dozens of families in this club, most with travel trailers or campers, but a few had the income to afford the really nice motor home. We’d all go camping several times each summer. I’m sure, when we weren’t using the group site, the camp host would think they just got locusts. But I digress.

My point is, working middle class people had money to do these things. They were also saving for retirement. It wasn’t perfect and we still had a lot of work to do on our social issues, but it was generally possible to have a very good existence.

Since the 1970s technology has increased our productivity exponentially. What that means is we, the ones working in the factory, on the farm, in the office, or in a shop, have seen our labor get multiplied 61.8% since 1979. Corporate profit has increased since 1979.

Why would a corporation, the entity that requires our labor to function, want to reduce our income while maximizing their return on our labor?

%d bloggers like this: