Biob, I made no claim at all. I simply asked you to define yours.
"What is this problem that the Right Wing has with Unions? What is wrong with regular people who work for a living making a middle class wage?
Those are the questions you asked, back to back in a thread about the right wing and unions. One can easily assume that you are implying that the right wing attitudes towards unions is connected to regular people who work for a living not making a middle class wage.
If that is not what you are implying, then I don't understand the reason for the comment. If it is what you are implying, then I ask you to validate that accusation with facts.
My implications are open to argument. I was very clear about what I thought the right wing did. They support legislation to undermine and eliminate unions, as is the case in Wisconsin, even when there is no economic gain to be made for the state from doing so. The right wing is trying to destroy labor as part of the free market equation by taking away their power to bargain for decent wages and benefits. The right wing has tended to support the folks in the top 1% of the economy by passing laws that benefit them, such as laws deregulating environmental protections. They have tended to support creditors at the expense of debtors, for example, and have tried to make government — when they are in power — a place where corporations have their interests protected, as was the case with deregulation of power utilities that led to the Enron Scandal and to the beginnings of California's massive debit.
Here are some of the references you asked for:
see, especially A Declining Middle Class on page 202
see especially below:
Prices are More Volatile Than Wages
One thing obvious thing the graph shows us is the contrast between the low variability in wages (blue line) compared the much more volatile changes in prices (red line). Employers exercise their option to raise and lower prices but try to limit changes in wages to what is allowed for under their business plan. Changes in costs of key "commodities", such as energy, food, and financing, and taxes are often followed by similar hikes in the prices for company goods and services.
The pay that employees receive does not closely track changes in prices, hence the lower volatility of earnings compared to prices. In this situation, workers are shouldering the burden of price hikes, which are not matched by increases in wages. In order to carry themselves and their families through periods of higher inflation, the worker can do one of three things:
1. Buy less goods and services, that is, belt tightening;
2. Dip into savings to cover higher costs due to inflation and hope to make up the savings when wages increase later on;
3. Use credit cards to make up the shortfall between earnings and price hikes.
Clearly, as Americans carry about $800 billion in credit card debt, option 3 is popular. What this means is that inflation not matched by the same increase in wages hits the worker's wallet twice: once at the time of purchase, and again later when credit card interest is applied. The worker is purchasing two items now, instead of one: the item, plus the cost of borrowing with a credit card. Nationwide, this kind of unhealthy economic practices is measured as an increase in GDP - generally thought to be a good thing..
Employers can manage the cost of labor through simply not offering higher wages, or, through contracts, where workers organized into unions agree to work a certain period of time for an agreed upon package of wages and benefits. What if there were such a thing as "consumer contracts?" The idea would be for consumers to band together and negotiate with food producers, grocery stores, gas stations, and even medical providers to iron out contracts whereby the consumer would get goods and services at a specified cost over a specified period of time. This would eliminate the price shocks that contribute to rising credit card debt and make businesses share the burden of sharp changes in costs of commodities.