Showing posts with label wages. Show all posts
Showing posts with label wages. Show all posts

16 April 2026

Corporatocracy Replaced Democracy and that is Why Environmental Politics are FIltered Out

It is a minor mystery to some about how Wall Street expanded so much since the end of the Cold War and yet wages really didn’t go up much at all. Certainly the Democrat Party lost interest in finding good ways to increase the standard of living for ordinary Americans long ago. They play the race card and flirt about with environmental issues and so forth and blame Republicans frequently for looking at Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security cuts and in effect ignore the real world economics altogether since politicians seek to be rich too.

Political campaigns are largely funded by wealthy donors or those able to afford to give away money. Realistically, corporatocracy has largely replaced Democracy in America. There are a lot of shareholders in corporate America. Some people though, are conscientious objectors to owning stock- all that is required is capital, and with the capital investment one gets money without actually doing any work. There are always people around that object to exploiting other.

Employees doing actual work-for-others haven't shared the post Cold War economic boom at all. The new boomers are those that have become shareholders since then including drug cartels and people overseas. Those living on working wages have evolved to being a lower class in America these days. Apparently the advantaged don't choose to share corporate profits with workers voluntarily; such is life everywhere throughout history preponderantly. American workers may become even more marginalized with more AI and robots. The media are aid well by corporate and say what is needed to pacify the populace and keep them away from relevant politics.

Democracy allows for substantial taxation on the rich and the right to allocate that revenue wheresoever they want. That isn't socialism as the public was trained to believe. Socialism requires that business be partly owned by the government. George Washington was the first President to make a federal tax. It was on whiskey primarily. There was a rebellion or insurrection in Pennsylvania and Washington raised a 13,000 man militia and led it himself to put down the Whiskey Rebellion. Abe Lincoln crested the first federal income tax to fund the civil war. He probably would have hung tax rebels if he could.

Republicans at least seek to tighten the labor market a little with closed borders while Democrats want to have open borders and are happy with lower wages for workers- at least they voted for Bush II tax cuts 100% with the exception of bernie Sanders when he was a Democrat.

I asked Gemini; How does Wall Street go up 1500% and the median income only goes up 30% since the end of the Cold War? Are the corporations not paying their employees better wages?

Gemini-The divergence between skyrocketing stock market performance (Wall Street) and stagnant median income (Main Street) since the end of the Cold War (approx. 1991) is driven by a shift in corporate strategy that prioritizes shareholder returns over employee compensation. While the S&P 500 has experienced immense growth—up over 2,700% from the mid-80s to 2022 in some analyses—real median household income has grown significantly less,, largely due to structural changes in the economy.
Here is a breakdown of why this gap exists and how corporations have behaved:

  1. Corporate Strategy: Profits Over Wages
    Prioritizing Shareholders: Companies are under pressure to maximize shareholder value in the short term. Profits are increasingly funneled into stock buybacks and dividends rather than reinvested in worker wages, training, or R&D.

  2. Stock Buybacks: Corporations have spent hundreds of billions annually on buying back their own stock, which artificially inflates share prices and increases executive compensation (often tied to stock performance), but does not improve the livelihoods of typical employees.
    Lower Wage Costs: Labor’s share of corporate income has fallen to record lows, meaning companies are paying out a smaller percentage of their revenues to employees.

  3. Structural Economic Shifts
    Globalization: The ability to move jobs to lower-wage countries has reduced the bargaining power of American workers, keeping wages flat even as productivity increases.

  4. Decline of Unions: The decrease in union membership has weakened the ability of workers to negotiate for higher wages and benefits.
    Automation and Technology: Advances in technology allow companies to produce more with fewer workers, leading to higher profit margins without corresponding payroll increases.

  5. Financialization of the Economy
    The Growth of Financial Sector: Wall Street now makes up a much larger share of the overall economy compared to 1980, with a smaller portion of its funds actually invested in productive, employee-heavy businesses.
    “Superstar” Firms: A few large firms dominate their industries, boasting high profits but often using technology to keep their labor costs disproportionately low.

  6. Productivity-Pay Gap
    While productivity (the output per worker) has increased significantly since the 1990s, wages have not kept pace. Historically, workers’ pay and productivity rose together, but since the 1970s and 1980s, the gains from productivity have primarily gone to corporate profits, executives, and investors.
    Economic Policy Institute

    In summary, corporations are not necessarily failing to make profits to pay higher wages—they are making record profits. However, those profits are being directed toward capital owners and investors rather than workers, resulting in a widening wealth gap."   
  7.     
  8. Taxing the rich to redistribute wealth, even directly to the poor, is generally considered a hallmark of social democracy or a welfare state rather than pure socialism. Socialism involves collective ownership of the means of production, whereas high taxation and cash transfers represent government-led redistribution aimed at tackling inequality.
    • Redistribution is not Social Ownership: The primary definition of socialism is workers or the state owning the factories and businesses. Taxing income or assets and passing it to the poor is a welfare mechanism (social democracy) that leaves the capitalist system (private ownership) intact.
    • Democratic Deliberation: Taxing the wealthy to support the poor is viewed by proponents as a democratic choice to manage high inequality and maintain social stability, rather than a transition to a socialist system.
    • Different Perspectives: While some might argue that any massive wealth redistribution fits a broader interpretation of socialism, others consider it necessary economic regulation to prevent oligarchic outcomes where inequality destroys democratic processes.
    • Cash Transfers: Giving taxes back to poor citizens as cash is a method for boosting purchasing power and reducing poverty, commonly used in capitalist societies to address poverty and economic downturns.

13 April 2026

Divergence; Dow Skyrockets and Wages Stagnate for Decades

 It was remarkable when President Obama compelled Democrats to renew the Bush II tax cuts, and only Bernie Sanders voted against it. Social Security is set to become insolvent in five or six years, and politicians are paralyzed regarding fixes. Making everyone contribute a proportionate amount of income would fix it, yet the rich are effectively exempt. The populace has become used to not taxing the rich proportionately or even progressively and instead letting public debt accumulate — and that does not even make up for the loss of tax revenue.

The Dow has risen more than 1,566% since the end of the Cold War, while U.S. median income has risen only about 30%. Wages are largely stagnant or even in relative decline, while the concentration of wealth has reached levels not seen in human history — except perhaps in the British Empire at its peak.

A nation needs its rich to participate with an egalitarian spirit politically. Sharing the economic burden should be a privilege for the rich. The ancient Spartan system that Plato and Socrates so admired — which they saw as a model for the Republic, with a few tweaks such as placing a pair of philosophers as kings in the ideal society — was remarkably egalitarian.

Capitalism does value individual enterprise, yet lacking public egalitarianism and realism, it promotes accumulation beyond a rational level, even to the detriment of a nation’s economic well-being and that of its citizens. It is not a guaranteed “basketball Jones” that makes a virtue of greed. There is no formula that exempts the citizenry from having an adequate level of economic realism, such as pure greed for its own sake asked Gemini about that-

Gary- Could the Dow be over-valued? I recall when it was at 3000-5000 just before the end of the cold war. Now it often reaches 50,000, yet wages haven’t gone up an order of magnitutde to keep pace. How has the Dow become hyper-inflated while wages have stagnated adjusted for inflation since the end of the Cold Wat and for men in the U.S.A., since the 1970s?

Could the stock market crash without the economy crashing. A downward adjustment to 25,000 would be regarded as a crash yet it would seem more of a rectification to me.

Gemini-The divergence between the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) and typical American wages is one of the most significant shifts in modern economic history. While the Dow has climbed from around 3,000 in 1990 to nearly 50,000 today (an increase of ~1,566%), real median household income has grown much more slowly, rising from roughly $64,000 in 1990 to about $84,000 in late 2024 (inflation-adjusted, ~31% growth). 

Why the Stock Market Outpaced Wages

Several structural factors have caused the Dow to "hyper-inflate" relative to labor earnings:

  • Capital vs. Labor: Since 1980, the return on capital (stocks, real estate) has consistently outstripped the rate of overall economic growth, while the link between worker productivity and pay has largely severed.
  • Global Corporate Profits: The Dow tracks 30 large, multinational corporations. These companies can increase profits by expanding into global markets or cutting domestic labor costs—actions that boost stock prices even if U.S. wages remain flat.
  • Monetary Policy: Decades of low interest rates and "money printing" (quantitative easing) have driven investors toward stocks to find returns, inflating asset prices.
  • Declining Labor Power: Factors like globalization, automation, and the decline of unions have reduced the bargaining power of workers, particularly men in manufacturing and trade sectors since the 1970s. 

Could the Market Crash Without the Economy?

Yes, it is possible. A "stock market crash" is a sudden, sharp decline in stock prices, while an "economic crash" (recession) is a decline in actual production and employment. 

  • The "Rectification" Scenario: If stock prices have become detached from the underlying earnings of companies, a major drop (like your suggested move to 25,000) could be seen as a "valuation adjustment" or "rectification".
  • Historical Precedents: In 1987, the Dow fell 22.6% in a single day (Black Monday), yet the broader U.S. economy did not enter a recession immediately afterward.
  • The Wealth Effect: However, a massive crash often triggers an economic slowdown because it reduces consumer confidence and makes it harder for companies to raise money for expansion. 

Comparison: Dow vs. Real Wages

Metric Late Cold War (c. 1990)Current (April 2026)Approximate Growth
Dow Jones (DJIA)~3,00048,185+1,500%
Real Median Household Income~$64,000~$84,000+31%
Real Median Male Earnings~$47,000~$60,000+28%

Note: All income figures are adjusted for inflation to current 

Gary- P.S. (edited by Grok) With the world increasingly splitting into competing economic blocs amid sanctions, wars, and shifting alliances, the Dow — which has risen dramatically on the back of overseas investment and globalization — may face a significant downward rectification. A correction toward the 25,000 level is conceivable if multinational profit streams shrink and supply-chain costs rise under deglobalization pressures. At the same time, a more secure-border, domestically focused U.S. economy could see genuine improvements: tighter labor markets potentially lifting wages for many workers, reshoring of manufacturing, and broader economic realism that reduces reliance on public debt and overseas leverage. Whether this decoupling occurs smoothly remains uncertain, but the era of easy global gains for asset prices while median incomes stagnate appears to be ending. A nation that encourages its wealthy to share the economic burden proportionately would be better positioned for sustainable prosperity.