And No, I’m Not Talking About Socialism
There is no political party pursuing an economy for the people. You might think you have your own idea of what that would be but you might not either, because our public conception of such a thing is almost non-existent. Read on and see.
Of course this also gets into the debate of where Democrats went wrong, but that’s a minor point.
The whole past cycle of the Federal Reserve fighting inflation is one part of the issue. For context, the Labor Share, a government tracked indicator of how much goes to workers versus how much to owners and investors – sort of how the pie is sliced – has been going downhill for over half a century. With that context, workers had a fluke, post-pandemic period of having the upper hand in employment negotiations. There were more jobs than available applicants. The Fed trounced on inflation despite the fact that doing that comes at the cost of cooling the economy until workers no longer have that leverage. That doesn’t just mean lower starting offers. It means lower raises for years to come, less union success at negotiations, workers who will retire decades from now less well off.
The Fed target could instead be to find that balance where inflation is not destructive, not a spiral, but still allows employment to stay tight so workers keep that leverage. Why? To start slowly regaining six decades of lost ground. Back toward a time better for workers, even while the rich did well too.
A people’s economy would mean undoing tax breaks given to the rich. It would mean virtually ending sales tax which burden low incomes more because they have to spend all they have. Or, where sales tax is needed for tourist areas, a tax refund to residents. It would mean tracking that Labor Share and when it’s below where it was in the ’70s then enacting policies to push it up, much as we track inflation and try to manage it. The effect of that policy alone, fully realized, is hard to imagine.
The people’s economy would mean a massive effort to stop wage theft, which is a massively under appreciated problem. There couldn’t be a better way to indicate that people don’t matter than the current disregard. It would mean ensuring ways that as technology reduces need for workers that workers greatly benefit. Greatly reduced hours but for the same annual pay. It would mean no forced arbitration for workers or consumers. No escaping responsibility for employees because it’s a franchise. It would mean requiring fixed schedules rather than jerking people around, or a good bonus for those who voluntarily offer to be flexible. It would mean a guaranteed number of hours set at hiring, so they can’t suddenly be reduced yet you still have to stay available in case they increase again, and meantime good luck making rent.
It would mean things far beyond economics. If a government is people focused enough to do some of the above then it’s also not going to allow excessive pollution in low-income areas, or schools that are only good in the wealthy areas, or a long list of similar issues.
What a people’s economy is not is any kind of radical left program. Many of the projects of the left are noble and needed: Women’s rights to make their own decisions about their own bodies, reforming policing to treat all equally, fighting climate change. But any party could adopt the economic policies described above, with or without other causes. Republicans could just as easily adopt such an economic policy while retaining their conservative issues, like banning abortion or staying full bore on fossil fuels. And Republicans just might do that if neither Democrats nor anyone else truly advances a people’s economy.
Such an economy is not socialist. People don’t need as much help from social programs if they’re getting paid what their work is truly worth. And it’s worth far more than what they’re paid now. Just look at the wealth of this nation. Wealth that is created by the work of the workers. It would mean making it common for workers to have the leverage to make collective bargaining truly effective, negotiating like equals, a powerful employer and a powerful union. As opposed to a powerful employer and thousands of individual employees who don’t stand a chance. Negotiation between equals. That’s not socialism. That’s a healthy free-market function operating as it should.
All of the hand wringing about whether Democrats should have picked a VP candidate from Pennsylvania, or whether Biden should have stepped out sooner, or whether Harris should have done fewer talk shows, is all laughable trivia compared to the fact that there is no political party dedicated to a truly people’s economy. A party who we would know would go as far toward that economy as political limitations will allow. If a party was understood to stand for that it wouldn’t matter if the VP candidate was from Mars. Democrats come a little closer to these policies but it’s a trivial difference. And just as importantly, the vision they project is weak and little different.
A truly people-first economy is so far removed from general public debate that you almost never see it even conceived of, even from the words of our most progressive voices. Make a political party that’s dedicated to an overtly, blatantly, codified people-first economy and you can campaign as badly as you like. It won’t matter. People will flock to it.
CLICK HERE TO DONATE IN SUPPORT OF DCREPORT’S NONPROFIT PARTICIPATORY MEDIA
