Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Democrats' Affordability Campaign Should Focus on Frozen Wages

Opinion

Democrats' Affordability Campaign Should Focus on Frozen Wages
fan of 100 U.S. dollar banknotes

Affordability has become a political issue because the cost of basic necessities - food, health and child care, transportation, and housing - for 43% of families today outruns their wages.

Inflation is one factor. But the affordability issue exists primarily because inflation-adjusted (real) wages for 80% of working- and middle-class men and women have been essentially frozen for the past 46 years.


Most men and women are frustrated and hamstrung by wage stagnation: 59% of workers across all sectors would now welcome unionization. They hunger for an economy that works for them, not billionaires, and are eagerly challenging antiunion elites like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos, who habitually suppress wages.

Working men and women will base their votes on facts if they have them. So Democrats need a compelling factual message for 2026 centered on unfreezing wages – a message replete with heroes and villains.

The Heroes: FDR’s New Deal Made America the Land of Opportunity

Even some economists are unaware that the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) has long maintained an extensive database on America’s working- and middle-class men and women. BLS describes them as “production, nonsupervisory” employees, and they comprise the lowest-earning 80% (111 million) of all private-sector nonfarm workers. From 1948-1979, as New Deal union organizing and collective bargaining strengthened, their real average hourly compensation (wages and benefits) rose an unprecedented 2.1% annually. The formula was simple: government-supported collective bargaining and stringent financial and antitrust regulations raised employee wages at the expense of profits.

That is why the share of national income accruing to the wealthiest 1% during this period fell by half from 21.6% in 1941 to 10.4% in 1980.

This was a stunning, unprecedented event. Throughout global history, wages had stagnated, with an average of half or fewer children out-earning their parents. Rising wages during the New Deal changed that: a huge majority (>90%) of U.S. children born in 1940 earned higher real household incomes at age 30 than their parents had at that age. The transformational New Deal formula created the gigantic American middle class, the fortunate generation of working-class men and women who realized the American Dream.

The Villains: Reaganomics Turned the American Dream into a Pipedream

America’s wealthiest conservatives and the deeply cynical Ronald Reagan put a stop to that, freezing wages over the 46 years since.

Billionaires Joseph Coors and Richard Mellon Scaife financed the 1981 Reagan economic blueprint called Reaganomics – directing Reagan and the Republicans to reverse the decline in their share of income. Reagan complied, empowering employers to break labor unions while enacting trade laws that incentivized job offshoring (Reagan’s maquiladora factories and later Trump’s 2017 tax law). The real Federal minimum wage was frozen below $10/hour, and Republican-led states adopted laws kneecapping collective bargaining.

Moreover, in the decades that followed, Wall Street Democrats Clinton and Obama offered only tepid support for unions or wages, and enacted their own trade laws (Clinton’s NAFTA, Obama’s Trans-Pacific Partnership) that further encouraged job offshoring and suppressed wages.

Since 1981, billionaires have continued to demand wage suppression. For example, six wealthy, conservative billionaire family fortunes funded Project 2025 giving directions to the Trump administration - the $100 billion Koch family (oil and gas), the huge Scaife Family Foundations (Mellon banking, aluminum, oil), and the Bradley (industrial parts), Uihlein (electronics, office supplies), Coors (brewing), and Seid (electronics) families.

Reaganomic policies have essentially frozen real average hourly compensation for the two generations from 1979 to 2025 for the vast “production, nonsupervisory” workforce - inching up a minuscule 0.6% annually.

That has enabled the national income share of the top 1% to double to 20.7%.

Consequently, U.S. children born in 1980 – with the misfortune of living their entire lives under Reaganomics – had earned on average at age 30 no more than their parents had at that age. As Isabel Sawhill of Brookings summarized, for “those born after about 1970 … absolute mobility has declined.”

This wage freeze, documented by BLS experts, was inevitable once Reagan embraced billionaires. For non-economists, the underlying explanatory economic theory – documented by a recent Nobel Prize – is that oligarchs routinely manipulate politics to maximize their own incomes. They create pantomime democracies like the U.S., called functional oligarchies. In contrast, that means democracy is a precondition for widespread prosperity - vibrant democracies like Denmark or Sweden see working- and middle-class men and women setting economic policy. The stark evidence: unlike northern Europe, U.S. income inequality is even greater than Russia's.

You have just read why Trump and the Republicans are hostile to democracy. They reject the economic principles of Founders like Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine, which hold that a vibrant democracy must corral oligarchs to realize inclusive, broadly based prosperity.

America is a Functional Oligarchy

Their real compensation frozen by elites since Reagan, 69% of Americans now view the American Dream as a pipedream – dismissing as myth the notion that grit and schooling alone will enable them to prosper. And a stunning 72% believe that America is no longer a democracy – with 87% of independents (and even 68% of Republicans) believing “the rich have too much political power.” They are angry with America’s functional oligarchy, a predatory system where families are daily fleeced - “bled dry by landlords, hospital administrators, university bursars and child-care centers” - an economic system that feels “downright terrible,” reports the Atlantic.

That reality is why many voters have difficulty distinguishing between the two political parties: neither Democrats nor Republicans are viewed as prioritizing the economic concerns of ordinary people.

Democratic Party Retooling: Populism and Anger at Republican Billionaires

Democratic centrists want the Party to retool in 2026 – move toward populist themes and away from cultural issues. “The Democratic Party must now run on the most populist economic platform since the Great Depression,” urges James Carville.

That starts with dramatizing the stunning BLS evidence that working- and middle-class wages have been frozen for two generations

And it means reprising Obama’s 2012 campaign of political conflict against the private equity CEO Mitt Romney. Mindful that 62% of independents believe the economy unfairly favors the wealthy, Democrats should channel voter economic frustration toward billionaire Republicans. They and Trump should be called out for their hostility and disdain for unions and working men and women.

This strategy upgrade would especially appeal to swing voters, disproportionately working-class men and women under economic pressure. And its populist foundation matches the profile of moderate Democrats like Kentucky Governor Beshear and Arizona Senator Gallego, who have overperformed recently with swing voters.

George Tyler is a former deputy assistant treasury secretary and World Bank official. He is the author of books including Billionaire Democracy and What Went Wrong.


Read More

U.S. Capitol

A shrinking deficit doesn’t mean fiscal health. CBO projections show rising debt, Social Security insolvency, and trillions added under the 2025 tax law.

Getty Images, Dmitry Vinogradov

The Deficit Mirage

The False Comfort of a Good Headline

A mirage can look real from a distance. The closer you get, the less substance you find. That is increasingly how Washington talks about the federal deficit.

Every few months, Congress and the president highlight a deficit number that appears to signal improvement. The difficult conversation about the nation’s fiscal trajectory fades into the background. But a shrinking deficit is not necessarily a sign of fiscal health. It measures one year’s gap between revenue and spending. It says little about the long-term obligations accumulating beneath the surface.

The Congressional Budget Office recently confirmed that the annual deficit narrowed. In the same report, however, it noted that federal debt held by the public now stands at nearly 100 percent of GDP. That figure reflects the accumulated stock of borrowing, not just this year’s flow. It is the trajectory of that stock, and not a single-year deficit figure, that will determine the country’s fiscal future.

What the Deficit Doesn’t Show

The deficit is politically attractive because it is simple and headline-friendly. It appears manageable on paper. Both parties have invoked it selectively for decades, celebrating short-term improvements while downplaying long-term drift. But the deeper fiscal story lies elsewhere.

Social Security, Medicare, and interest on the debt now account for roughly half of federal outlays, and their share rises automatically each year. These commitments do not pause for election cycles. They grow with demographics, health costs, and compounding interest.

According to the CBO, those three categories will consume 58 cents of every federal dollar by 2035. Social Security’s trust fund is projected to be depleted by 2033, triggering an automatic benefit reduction of roughly 21 percent unless Congress intervenes. Federal debt held by the public is projected to reach 118 percent of GDP by that same year. A favorable monthly deficit report does not alter any of these structural realities. These projections come from the same nonpartisan budget office lawmakers routinely cite when it supports their position.

Keep ReadingShow less
A New Democratic Approach: Guardrails That Speed, Not Stop, Progress

A take on permitting reform, deregulation, and DHS accountability—arguing for economic growth with guardrails that protect communities, health, and the environment.

Getty Images, Javier Ghersi

A New Democratic Approach: Guardrails That Speed, Not Stop, Progress

For far too long, our national conversation has been framed around a false choice. On one side, Republicans frequently argue that the best way to strengthen the economy and improve the lives of everyday Americans is to give businesses maximum freedom by having fewer rules, fewer constraints and more incentives to grow. On the other side, Democrats have stressed the need for guardrails to protect our environment, our health, and our communities from the unintended effects of unchecked growth.

But this debate has always been too narrow. It assumes that we must choose between action and accountability, between getting things done and doing them responsibly.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Many Victims of Trump’s Immigration Policy–Including the U.S. Economy

Messages of support are posted on the entrance of the Don Julio Mexican restaurant and bar on January 18, 2026 in Forest Lake, Minnesota. The restaurant was reportedly closed because of ICE operations in the area. Residents in some places have organized amid a reported deployment of 3,000 federal agents in the area who have been tasked with rounding up and deporting suspected undocumented immigrants

Getty Images, Scott Olson

The Many Victims of Trump’s Immigration Policy–Including the U.S. Economy

The first year of President Donald Trump’s second term resulted in some of the most profound immigration policy changes in modern history. With illegal border crossings having dropped to their lowest levels in over 50 years, Trump can claim a measure of victory. But it’s a hollow victory, because it’s becoming increasingly clear that his immigration policy is not only damaging families, communities, workplaces, and schools - it is also hurting the economy and adding to still-soaring prices.

Besides the terrifying police state tactics, the most dramatic shift in Trump's immigration policy, compared to his presidential predecessors (including himself in his first term), is who he is targeting. Previously, a large number of the removals came from immigrants who showed up at the border but were turned away and never allowed to enter the country. But with so much success at reducing activity at the border, Trump has switched to prioritizing “internal deportations” – removing illegal immigrants who are already living in the country, many of them for years, with families, careers, jobs, and businesses.

Keep ReadingShow less
Close up of stock market chart on a glowing particle world map and trading board.

Democrats seek a post-Trump strategy, but reliance on neoliberal economic policies may deepen inequality and voter distrust.

Getty Images, Yuichiro Chino

After Trump, Democrats Confront a Deeper Economic Reckoning

For a decade, Democrats have defined themselves largely by their opposition to Donald Trump, a posture taken in response to institutional crises and a sustained effort to defend democratic norms from erosion. Whatever Trump may claim, he will not be on the 2028 presidential ballot. This moment offers Democrats an opportunity to do something they have postponed for years: move beyond resistance politics and articulate a serious, forward-looking strategy for governing. Notably, at least one emerging Democratic policy group has begun studying what governing might look like in a post-Trump era, signaling an early attempt to think beyond opposition alone.

While Democrats’ growing willingness to look past Trump is a welcome development, there is a real danger in relying too heavily on familiar policy approaches. Established frameworks offer comfort and coherence, but they also carry risks, especially when the conditions that once made them successful no longer hold.

Keep ReadingShow less