comment: >
  
  The issue here seems to be that you have bought into the ruling class revisionist history about the left and unions. Socialism used to be openly discussed and a normal part of American life.  Eugene V Debs started that industrial workers of the world and then the socialist party of America. In the 1910s I belive he got 6 percent of the national vote.  
  The red scare in the 50s should only be seen as a reaction to FDR and something inflicted on Americans to break up the left. It was the beginnings of modern ruling class propaganda. 
  The ruling class and congress would have known social democracy and Stalinism were not the same thing.  They used the media to create a monster out of workers participating in how their work is run. 
  In your op you cited bad history on this when you said unions abused their power.  Unions are democracy. If a group votes to not work, forego their pay, and make demands,  it's impossible for it to be abuse.  You are citing the anti union propaganda there. 
  In conclusion, starting in the 40s the ruling class used their power in controlling the media to dismantle the left. The reason this will change is there will at one point be a total collapse in public trust in private for profit media.  We can see it building year by year. There will be new media structures that will become the norm.  Iv don't know that they will try to reverse the anti left propaganda but my point is trust in the reality conducted by the rich will completely die
context: Without them, competition among employers is not sufficient to raise wages as classical economists assert.
  
  Why? >
  
  It's called monopsony power. When firms hold substantial control over labor markets and when workers have limited choice in where to find job (it can even be for indirect reasons like lacking public transportation), this ensures employers have excess bargaining power. >
  
  Do you have any evidence that it actually exists in major industries? >
  
  Here is Douglas Webber's analysis on monopsony power, and which industries have more or less of it. >
  
  Thanks for the link. I was not familiar with the concept of monopsony power, so I will definitely read more about it in the future.
  If, in fact, monopsony power is strong, wages would rise slower than one would expect in a model that assumes perfect supply elasticity. Still, it would not necessarily mean that there is no wage growth. 
  As far as I can tell, there is large disagreement about whether wages in the last decades rose. Many economists point out that per capita consumption and living standards rose even among lower class Americans, especially when you take non-wage benefits into account. Alan Rey claims that real per capita consumption increased by 74% between 1973 and 2004. 
  While labor markets may be somewhat oligopsonistic, these indicators seem to contradict your theory that unions are necessary to raise consumption. >
  
  Your understanding of history is partially incorrect.
  >This is why, after nearly a decade of a labor golden age under FDR, public opinion turned against labor unions in the late 1940s.
  The late 40s was the start of the cold war. The turn against unions was because of the association with leftism, not anything unions did. It was redbaiting McCarthyism pure and simple.  
  This is why unions are stronger in European countries such as France or Scandinavia, all of which have strong left wing parties. Unlike the United States which has essentially two right wing political parties (democrats policies would be considered center or center right in every other developed country). 
  You are victim blaming. >
  
  This is false. If it was because unions were seen as inherently socialist, they never would've retained high member rates throughout the 1950s. The unions declined because of the unstable class warfare after World War II.