Donald Trump is peddling his economic turmoil through a straightforward narrative:
From 1945 to 1981, prior to Reagan and Clinton (as well as most members from both political parties) adopting 'free trade' neoliberal policies, a typical manufacturing employee in the United States was able to afford purchasing a home, enjoy an annual holiday, replace their vehicle every couple of years, cover tuition for their children’s education, and secure a decent retirement plan. This was possible due to the production activities within our country.
When the era of free trade started, it led to the relocation of 90,000 factories and 40 million well-paid positions to China and other lower-wage nations, sparking the decline of the middle class. To regain that economic success, we simply need to employ tariffs to bring manufacturing back to the United States.
This narrative resonates with individuals who experienced the "heyday of manufacturing" firsthand as well as with newer employees who encounter depictions of this period in films and television shows or listen to tales recounted by their elders. However, it fails to acknowledge an essential truth: the middle class didn't emerge because of the factories alone; rather, it was the labor unions that played a crucial role.
Factories were a major feature of countries that went through industrialization between the Civil War era and World War II. But only occasionally did a factory in a community produce a middle class; more often factory workers endured brutal conditions, violent bosses, and were paid crap wages.
The widespread alcohol abuse in these dismal workplaces became such an issue that women nationwide took action in 1920, demanding Prohibition. Their efforts were remarkably effective, compelling Congress to pass a constitutional amendment that same year to ban alcoholic beverages entirely.
Around the seventy-five-year mark, a significant shift occurred with the onset of the American middle-class expansion. This transformation was catalyzed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s advocacy for the Wagner Act—also referred to as the National Labor Relations Act—which he successfully steered through Congress in 1935, thereby legitimizing labor unions.
A decade after World War II concluded, employers found themselves compelled to accept unions, substantial wages, and excellent benefits due to intense competition among them for workforce members willing to operate in their facilities. This era, spanning from the latter part of the 1940s until the late 1970s, gave rise to a large and robust middle class—a social stratum championed by Trump and yearned for nostalgically by many American workers.
It’s coincidental—though purposefully so—that the relocation of our manufacturing plants occurred during the period from 1981 to 2020, which also saw a decline in union membership. This was due to presidents Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama all supporting free trade policies. Neoliberalism .
Initially, Reagan argued for opening our markets to international producers, allowing American consumers access to affordable products manufactured at lower costs abroad. He contended that "union leaders" acted as parasitic entities clinging to workers' backs. To liberate workers from what he deemed corrupt individuals, he launched an assault against labor unions.
The Supreme Court came under Republican control in the 1970s and supported Reagan’s agenda. eliminating union rights in one ruling after another in the coming thirty years.
President Bill Clinton also chimed in, informing Americans that blue-collar jobs were outdated relics and suggesting it was time to progress beyond them and the unions associated with these roles. For instance, in 1998, he delivered a speech where he argued:
We are transitioning from an era dominated by machinery and hard work to one driven by innovation and imagination.
In an additional address, he stated that labor unions ought to adapt to employers' requests for wage and benefit freezes due to reduced competition among workers as the population expands and numerous factories close down.
To thrive in the worldwide market, we must foster a renewed spirit of collaboration between workers and employers.
The outcome was clear: Upon taking office in 1981, President Reagan inherited an environment where approximately one-third of American workers belonged to labor unions. This meant that nearly two-thirds of employees benefited from the compensation packages and working conditions established through collective bargaining agreements made by these unions, which effectively dictated the prevailing standards for pay and benefits at a local level.
However, by the conclusion of President Trump's initial term, private sector union membership had dropped to a pathetic 5.9%, Only about 11% of U.S. private-sector employees had access to the salaries and benefits that previous generations of Americans were accustomed to receiving.
Therefore, it comes as no surprise that our numbers dwindled from two-thirds of us firmly belonging to the middle class during Reagan's inauguration until now. down to less than 47% of us today.
Although Democrats distanced themselves from Clinton’s neoliberal policies during the Biden administration by actively supporting labor unions (Biden became the first U.S. president to join a picket line), Republicans remain strongly against unions and unionization efforts.
That’s why Trump’s call for reindustrialization won’t help restore the middle class unless it comes with a resurgence of the labor union movement.
However, rather than backing labor, he has appointed Lori Chavez-DeRemer, a publicly known opponent of unions who was once a Republican congresswoman, to lead the Labor Department. She straightforwardly expresses her stance against what she refers to as "compulsory unionism." aka union shops), instead supporting The state-level legislation that undermines union membership by allowing workers to opt out of joining unions or paying fair-share fees.
The right to employment is an essential principle of labor legislation, allowing states to decide whether they wish to become right-to-work states, which ought to be safeguarded. ... We shouldn't endorse compulsory union membership.
The straightforward truth is that relocating manufacturing back to America without supporting it with strong unionization will not increase wages whatsoever. This explains why Honda employees in Alabama and Indiana earn less compared to their unionized counterparts. McDonald's employees work in Denmark. (including six weeks of fully paid yearly leave, complimentary healthcare, and tuition-free college education).
The clear main objective for Trump, as Sen. Chris Murphy highlights He is compelling one nation after another and sector after sector to approach him and plead for exemptions from his tariffs. This ultimately aids him in achieving his objective of transforming into an absolute dictator and dismantling our democratic system.
As Senator Murphy said:
"It's neither about economic policy nor trade policy; it's a political tool meant to bring down our democratic system. ... The key point here is recognizing that all of this Donald Trump What he is doing serves the purpose of maintaining power indefinitely—for himself, his family, or those he has chosen as heirs. He aims to dismantle our democratic system."
To put it differently, this isn't about trade policy; it's purely a display of power.
There are compelling reasons to advocate for relocating manufacturing back to the United States, as highlighted in my discussion. The Concealed Legacy of Neoliberalism: How Reaganomics Ravaged the United States .
They encompass national security issues (we cannot construct a battleship without components from China) as well as the fact that manufacturing represents one of the quickest pathways to boost a country’s total wealth (a point Adam Smith highlighted). Wealth of Nations ; and ensuring safety for American consumers (especially concerning pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, toys, and processed foods).
However, Trump’s approach — which is misleadingly presented as an answer to poor salaries and inadequate benefits — will merely lead to more employees (and children) working in sweatshop conditions and low-paying plants.
Trump’s portrayal of America’s economic resurgence is an empty reminiscence of an era that didn’t genuinely occur—certainly not without the backing of organized labor. While he discusses tariffs and industries, he appoints anti-union advocates who aim to demolish the frameworks that previously provided these positions their worth and influence.
You could construct factories at every crossroads across the nation, yet without involving unions, you won’t be revitalizing the middle class—you’d just be erecting sweatshops adorned with American flags.
The true illusion lies in believing we can achieve prosperity without empowering workers.
The reality is both blunt and straightforward. The middle class cannot ascend without the support of unions. Regardless of how forcefully Trump promotes his vision, it is robust labor unions and higher rates of worker unionization that can turn this into reality.
And Republicans will never go along with that.
NOW READ: Trump's disorder breeds victors and vanquished — and he consistently ensures he ends up among the victors.
Related Articles:
・ "Likely a scam": Federal workers dismiss Trump offer, stating they “aren’t moving an inch.”
・ "Mind the small print": Authorities criticize 'deceptive' Trump buyout proposal for federal employees
・ An alarm was triggered as 4,100 factory employees were let go due to the disarray caused by Trump's policies.
・ Is there anyone who still needs further evidence that Trump doesn’t care about workers at all?
・ Union head pledges to 'actively protect' contracts canceled by Trump