Can anyone clearly explain the Democrats' approach to helping workers?

[welshTerrier2]

let's start with the scorecard from the big game:

source: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/28/business/28wages.html?ex=1157601600&en=3f9f8ddc4df99d89&ei=5070

As a result, wages and salaries now make up the lowest share of the nation’s gross domestic product since the government began recording the data in 1947, while corporate profits have climbed to their highest share since the 1960’s. UBS, the investment bank, recently described the current period as "the golden era of profitability."

Let's dig into the world of workers and the world of stockholders ... as the above article indicates, over the last 50 years or so, one group has been losing and the other group has been winning ...

Workers usually are highly dependent on their jobs ... and their families are highly dependent on the income from those jobs as well ... if a worker is terminated or a company moves out of the country, it can take years to find another job or replace that lost income ... mobility from one job to the next is often very difficult to achieve ... viewed another way, the worker is in a relatively weak bargaining position ... even well organized powerful unions have had to make substantial concessions because the deck is stacked against them ...

and who benefits? stockholders ... a stockholder does not have the same kind of dependency on a company ... with a quick phonecall to a broker, or a few mouse clicks online, the change from one company to another can be made in seconds ...

when large company managements choose their business strategies, which group do they cater to and what strategies do they choose? if you are a worker, you want to see your company emphasize long-term stability and long-term growth; if you are a stockholder, pressure for instant returns is much greater ... a bad quarter or two and you can just start clicking your mouse ... unlike small businesses, where there is often a personal relationship between owners and workers, stockholders and employees often don't have any relationship at all ... stockholders have no investment in what happens to American workers; they only have an investment in their own wealth ...

what we've built in the US is an economic and political system of mega-corporations that enables our institutions to serve the interests of stockholders (see the scorecard above) at the expense of workers ...

what is the position of the Democratic Party in response to this situation? i hope someone more knowledgeable than I am can clearly articulate in real specifics exactly how the Democratic Party plans to restore balance to the struggle between workers and their employers ...

I am not able to see how the Democratic Party really addresses the issue in any significant way ... I see numerous excellent programs proposed by Democrats but I see nothing that seeks to level the playing field ... a laundry list of wonky programs does not change the central paradigm or the inequitable balance of power ... and that's what this really is all about - it's about who holds the power ... the scorecard above tells you the answer to that one ...

Democratic programs like raising the minimum wage, the Family Medical Leave Act, increased OSHA regulations to protect workers, and I'm sure a long list of other very necessary programs deserve our full support and Democrats should be commended for proposing them ...

But scorecards measure the ultimate results and the results are not very impressive ... I worry that Democrats have become the party of bandaid solutions ... I worry that Democrats, while supportive of workers, are failing us in this area ... It's all about THE BIG PICTURE ... it's all about the underlying ECONOMIC PHILOSOPHY ... it's all about making a real difference and reversing the SCORE OF THE BIG GAME ...

we're losing and we're losing badly ... what exactly do Democrats plan to do about it? I await your clear and specific explanations ...

[The_Casual_Observer]

1. The reality is that Democratic lawmakers have to spend most of

their time keeping the rw from destroying the rest of the existing social programs. It's a full time job.

[welshTerrier2]

3. "spending most of their time"

that may be the reality but it's not at all clear to me that most Democrats even talk about their thoughts on this issue ... part of the role of any party is to explain the beliefs of its members ... do most prominent Democrts see this as a critical issue that needs to be addressed? just hearing their thoughts would be an important first step ... we can worry about implementation strategies once we're all clear what the mission is ...

and please note that this trend of weakening workers and strengthening stockholders has been tallied over roughly the last 50 years ... this isn't just something that's happened during bush's time in office ...

[alvarezadams]

14. Sure it's a full time job

But since they only spend a quarter of their time on it, spending the rest embracing neoliberal policies and "triangulating" with the DLC, they're not exactly model representatives, are they?

[The_Casual_Observer]

16. Who's been calling all the shots for the last 5 years?

I don't remember this being an issue in the 1995-1999 period.

[alvarezadams]

17. And?

It's easy to govern in the good times. The hard part is to govern during the hard times.

Bubba's reign was a period of economic bounty - and the poor and middle class saw the erosion of their wealth slow down.

Note well - it SLOWED DOWN, it didn't get better.

[The_Casual_Observer]

19. And what legislation could have been passed in the last 6 years

that would have been to your liking?

[alvarezadams]

20. MY liking?

It's been DECADES since I've agreed with the lion's share of legislation.

The fact that the previous administration was "less bad" than the current one is no consolation for me.

[The_Casual_Observer]

21. It seems that you might at least offer one small suggestion.

So far all I'm hearing is that you don't like anything and haven't liked anything for years. Would it be along the lines of nationalizing some corporations?

[alvarezadams]

24. Funny you should mention it

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/alvarezadams/3

[welshTerrier2]

22. "could have passed"

i'm afraid that is not a valid standard for a political party to use when communicating its beliefs to voters ...

your point is certainly correct ... nothing Democrats proposed during the last 6 years was likely to pass or perhaps even reach a vote on the floor ...

but that does not preclude Democrats from laying out their vision ... that's where i see the problem ... look at the responses in this thread ... yeah, my opinion is that the party has not articulated a real solution ... call me biased ... that's fine ...

but the OP's subject line is an invitation for all to post their understanding of the Party's approach to solving the problems workers face ... the responses have, thus far, been underwhelming to say the least ...

i don't think, just because we are out of power today, that we should be excused from having very clear ideas about how to heal the nation ... what should i say when people i know who refuse to vote at all ask me for the very specific details about the Democrats' ideas on fixing the economy?

i tell them my ideas; i'm often left with not too much to say when talking about the Party itself ... these are people who think the whole political process is a bunch of empty campaign rhetoric ... i try to convince them otherwise but their legitimate demands for details, especially on the economy, make a pretty weak case ... make the case here so that we who campaign can do better ...

[Crazy Dave]

2. I seriously think the best that we can do realistically...

...is create policies that will help the lower income workers like free government health care and subsidized daycare for working parents. Things like that will help them keep more of the little bit of money they make. I truly don't see mandatory living wages a reality in the private sector.
Just one thought on it.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

4. Which do you think will attract more voters?

A) Minimum wage increase

or

B) Complicated economic reform package that few people can understand.

[Crazy Dave]

5. I don't think an increased minimum wage would hurt...

... but there are many of the working poor making more than the minimum wage like $8 - $10 an hour that have to pay $600 a month for the whole family's healthcare plan and about $200 a month for daycare can be a real problem. Free healthcare and daycare could put $800 more in that person's pocket and probably be easier to implement than forcing an employer to pay that person $800 more a month.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

6. I don't disagree at all.

But fighting for a minimum wage hike wins elections. Universal health care is what'll keep them in office once they're there.

As we've seen before, it's too hard for John Q. Citizen to understand, which means it's easily derailed by our opponents. Just put the thing in place and people will understand once they see it in action.

[Crazy Dave]

7. And I agree about the spin

A couple of TV commercials and everyone will gladly accept another dollar and let the government take five in it's place.

[welshTerrier2]

8. no, we certainly wouldn't want to propose anything complicated

voters aren't quite as stupid as you seem to think they are ... for starters, what i'm calling for is a very simple thing for voters to understand:

Fix the fucking scorecard ...

as i said, i commend Democrats for supporting increases in the minimum wage ... but while you're so busy playing your little political games, perhaps you should focus on the larger political impact of giving workers some real hope ...

most Americans see "the whole thing" going down the tubes ... our economy is being destroyed ... we are looking for something to change the direction of the big ship; not just patch up a crack or two in the hull ... the big ship has been hitting progressively larger rocks and good ideas like the minimum wage are just patching up the cracks that result ...

you want votes? change the direction of the ship ... you don't get to weasel out of this with an "either-or" approach; both little fixes and major, visionary shifts in direction are needed ...

[Stinky The Clown]

9. Welshie, if this is off topic, tell me and I'll shut up .....

.... there's another issue in this topic that's always kinda frosted me. You point up the weak position of workers with repsect to corporate strategies, and rightly so. But there's another class of people with nearly an equally weak position. The small stockholder. True, and again as you point out, many of them can 'click' out of a position pretty easily. But a small stockholder has no more say in a company than a worker.

My hundred shares of Consolidated Dog Shit (Symbol: POOP) give me essentially no voice or influence than the lowliest worker. I sell it and no one notices - except my broker when he gets the commission. My point is not to garner a 'poor you' for stockholders. Rather it is to show that the deck's stacked both ways. Stockholders who invest (relatively) small amounts through IRAs or 401k's or even self-directed portfolios are really chicken feed. The totality of small investor capitalization may be significant, but as it relates to individual Johns and Janes it is near meaningless.

The only people who benefit - and more importantly, gain control and influence - from holding stock are the megaplayers. My wife's IRA, which has lost almost 3/4 its value since 2000, is just an 'oh well' to the big guys.

[welshTerrier2]

10. not OT at all - funny you should bring this up ...

i was just talking to a friend about this exact topic ...

i guess i need to make this overall point when the issue of what i'll call "class warfare" is raised ... when i talk about overthrowing capitalist oppression, i'm talking about the scorecard in the OP ... i'm talking about the overall balance of power between workers and owners ...

and most importantly, my focus is specifically on those who hold the real power and those who do not ... and so, if i use rhetoric about capitalism, it is NOT my intent to sweep up small business owners in the same nets as nameless, faceless multi-national corporations ... i am not at all opposed to mom and pop operations ...

the same is true for small stockholders ... again, what is needed is a change in the economic model to restore equity in the struggle for control ... i couldn't agree more that small stockholders and their shares of Poop have virtually no control ...

still, even in the case of the small investor trying to save for retirement, the highest priority of an economic system should be to cater to workers ... there's an immediacy to that ... job loss can be devastating ... again, this is not an either-or situation ... the two issues are incredibly inter-related ...

think about this ... go around and ask your neighbors what the Democrats main issue is ... what would they say? what would you say?

my guess is that a majority would say "saving Social Security" ... i'm totally guessing but i think they would use exactly those words ... in fact, it's not all that clear to me that most people could even list too many other issues ...

but if Democrats are concerned about retirement security today, including in the financial model private savings (IRA's, 401K's, savings, etc) and public support via Social Security, how can we expect a solvent old age given the scorecard in the OP? how can we expect ANY financial security if our jobs are being shipped overseas?

it's time for "the little people", be they workers (my primary emphasis here) or small stockholders or voters or students or senior citizens or any other group or classification, to realize that the "current rules" need to be TURNED ON THEIR HEADS ... we need MEGA-CHANGES, not bandaid solutions ... we need to say that we no longer accept the rules of the game ... we need to say that we don't agree that you have a right to "win at capitalism" because those are the rules ... we are saying that we've seen what those rules lead to and we are going to change them whether you like it or not ...

i really don't care whether this is called socialism or communism or anything else ... and i really don't care whether some are worried that it will kill American incentives to produce (someone actually said this to me - a so-called progressive) ... and i really don't even care whether others consider it fair or not or consider it too authoritarian ...

my pitch is that almost all Americans are working class (whether rich, middle, or poor) and that an economic system that caters to the profits before people crowd, and the scorecard clearly indicates that ours does, needs to be radically altered ... it's time to implement a sweeping array of changes that puts, sorry for the cliche, people before profits ...

[TygrBright]

11. A Recommended Approach to Helping Workers:

Take their heels off our throats!

That should do it nicely.

ironically,
Bright

[Ninja Jordan]

12. Raise federal minimum wage to $7/hr & curb immigration

make it the central piece of the platform. Only far right idologues are actually against such a proposal.


The fewer the number of illigal immigrants that enter the USA, the less likely businesses are to hire them and pay below the minimum wage.

[Greyhound]

13. No, because they don't have one. They have plans for campaigns

they have plans to get themselves elected or re-elected, and that is it. The rest is band-aids and meaningless platitudes. They take no positions beyond the distraction du jour, they refuse to even talk about the fundamentally flawed economy that they and their predecessors created at the behest of their corporate masters.

Forcing the average sheeple into investing in the stock market was nothing but a scheme to cause exactly what we have seen happen (BTW, WE TRIED TO TELL YOU, BUT YOU WOULDN'T LISTEN!). How can The Democratic Party now make the changes needed in the markets when their constituents will be badly hurt by those changes? At a time when it the pain is being felt by the majority of amerikans, it politically impossible to ask them to make more painful changes, that is if you want to be re-elected, so they will sit on their asses doing nothing of substance while the whole fucking thing crashes down around our ears for they are very well insulated and will come through this just fine.

It is now 1929.

edit:sp

[welshTerrier2]

15. 1929 ...

i wonder how many "elite" Democrats believe it is 1929 ... if indeed it is, isn't it just way beyond tragic that they will not be proactive in addressing it ...

i'm sure if we get a collapse of that magnitude that anyone seeking political office will be forced to propose very deep changes in the current economic model ...

but what's the point of waiting? how much suffering has already occurred and how much more will occur if no one comes forward to propose meaningful changes NOW?

and that's the truth you pointed out: band-aids and platitudes ... it doesn't need to be this way ... i think it's important not to criticize the "small" proposals Democrats have made ... i think they're all valuable ... i also think they are totally inadequate ... our economy is hemorrhaging as new wounds are being inflicted every single day ... providing band-aids is all well and good; fighting back against those inflicting the wounds is far more important ...

[alvarezadams]

18. I don't remember who said it...

it was something on the lines that "American politicians learn from history. The problem is that they learn all the wrong lessons".

[Greyhound]

23. That is a good point and I didn't intend to belittle the few timid steps

that have been proposed, but they serve only to marginally alleviate some of the symptoms and fail to address the herd of elephants that are demolishing the whole house.

IMO, this scandalous shell-game that both Parties have played on us is criminal, and they've known all along what the inevitable result of it will be.