About 'cost pool accounting'|... to remove the pieces of hair/dust/paper/waramashit swimming in the pool of waste water. And this my friend, is a glimpse of how a TRUE CBB is like...
Ｍｏｕｎｔａｉｎｓ ｏｆ ｐａｐｅｒ ｈａｖｅ ｂｅｅｎ ｗｒｉｔｔｅｎ ａｂｏｕｔ ｔｈｅ ｅｃｏｎｏｍｉｃ ｐｅｒｉｏｄ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ 1980ｓ, ｃｏｉｎｅｄ Ｒｅａｇａｎｏｍｉｃｓ. Ｒｏｎａｌｄ Ｒｅａｇａｎ'ｓ ｓｕｐｐｏｒｔｅｒｓ ｃｒｅｄｉｔ ｈｉｍ ａｓ ｂｅｉｎｇ ｔｈｅ ｇｒｅａｔ ｓａｖｉｏｒ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ Ａｍｅｒｉｃａｎ ｅｃｏｎｏｍｙ; ｈｉｓ ｃｒｉｔｉｃｓ' ｃｒｅｄｉｔ ｈｉｓ ｐｏｌｉｃｉｅｓ ｆｏｒ ｃｒｅａｔｉｎｇ ｔｈｅ ｄｅｓｔｒｕｃｔｉｏｎ ｏｆ ｌａｂｏｒ ａｎｄ ｇａｍｂｌｉｎｇ ａｗａｙ ｔｈｅ ｆｕｔｕｒｅ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ Ａｍｅｒｉｃａｎ ｅｃｏｎｏｍｙ ｔｈｒｏｕｇｈ ｍａｓｓｉｖｅ ｉｎｃｒｅａｓｅｓ ｉｎ ｔｈｅ ｆｅｄｅｒａｌ ｄｅｆｉｃｉｔ. Ｔｈｉｓ ｐａｐｅｒ ｗｉｌｌ ｄｉｓｃｕｓｓ ｏｎｅ ｐａｒｔｉｃｕｌａｒ ｆａｃｅｔ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ Ｒｅａｇａｎｏｍｉｃｓ ｄｅｂａｔｅ; ｔｈｅ ｉｓｓｕｅ ｏｆ ｉｎｅｑｕａｌｉｔｙ ｉｎ ｉｎｃｏｍｅ ｄｉｓｔｒｉｂｕｔｉｏｎ ｉｎ Ａｍｅｒｉｃａ ａｓ ａ ｒｅｓｕｌｔ ｏｆ ａ ｔｕｒｎ-ａｒｏｕｎｄ ｉｎ ｇｏｖｅｒｎｍｅｎｔ ｐｏｌｉｃｉｅｓ ｃｏｍｂｉｎｅｄ ｗｉｔｈ ｃｏｒｐｏｒａｔｅ ｒｅｓｔｒｕｃｔｕｒｉｎｇ. Ｔｈｅｒｅ ｉｓ ｐｌｅｎｔｙ ｏｆ ｍａｔｅｒｉａｌ ｔｏ ａｒｇｕｅ ｗｈｅｔｈｅｒ ｏｒ ｎｏｔ Ｒｅａｇａｎｏｍｉｃｓ ｗａｓ ａｎ ｅｃｏｎｏｍｉｃ ｓｕｃｃｅｓｓ ｏｒ ａｎ ｅｃｏｎｏｍｉｃ ｂｌｕｎｄｅｒ. Ａｎｄ, ｏｆ ｃｏｕｒｓｅ, ｂｏｔｈ ｓｉｄｅｓ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ ａｒｇｕｍｅｎｔ ｗｉｌｌ ｐｒｅｓｅｎｔ ｅｖｉｄｅｎｃｅ ｉｎ ｓｕｐｐｏｒｔ ｏｆ ｔｈｅｉｒ ｐｏｓｉｔｉｏｎｓ. Ｙｅｔ, ｎｏ ｒｅａｌ ｃｒｅｄｉｂｌｅ ａｒｇｕｍｅｎｔ ｈａｓ ｂｅｅｎ ｍａｄｅ ｔｈａｔ ｔｈｅ Ｒｅａｇａｎ ｙｅａｒｓ ｄｉｄ ａｎｙｔｈｉｎｇ ｔｏ ｉｍｐｒｏｖｅ ｔｈｅ ｅｑｕａｌｉｔｙ ｏｆ ｉｎｃｏｍｅ ｄｉｓｔｒｉｂｕｔｉｏｎ. Ｂｏｔｈ ｓｉｄｅｓ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ Ｒｅａｇａｎｏｍｉｃ ｆｅｎｃｅ ｐｒｏｖｉｄｅ ｍｏｒｅ ｔｈａｎ ｅｎｏｕｇｈ ｅｖｉｄｅｎｃｅ ｉｎ ｓｕｐｐｏｒｔ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ ａｒｇｕｍｅｎｔ ｔｈａｔ ｓａｙｓ: ｌｏｗｅｒ ａｎｄ ｍｉｄｄｌｅ ｃｌａｓｓ Ａｍｅｒｉｃａ ｌｏｓｔ ｓｉｇｎｉｆｉｃａｎｔ ｇｒｏｕｎｄ ｄｕｒｉｎｇ ｔｈｅ 1980ｓ. Ｉ ｍｕｓｔ ａｄｄ ａｔ ｔｈｉｓ ｐｏｉｎｔ ｔｈａｔ ｔｈｅ "Ｕ-ｔｕｒｎ" ｉｎ Ａｍｅｒｉｃａ'ｓ ｅｃｏｎｏｍｉｃｓ ａｃｔｕａｌｌｙ ｂｅｇａｎ ｄｕｒｉｎｇ ｔｈｅ 1970ｓ; Ｒｅａｇａｎ ｏｎｌｙ ｓｐｅｄ ｕｐ ａｎｄ ｅｘｐａｎｄｅｄ ｔｈｅ ｐｒｏｃｅｓｓ ｓｉｇｎｉｆｉｃａｎｔｌｙ ("Ｕ-ｔｕｒｎ"- ｔｈｅ ｔｅｒｍ ｕｓｅｄ ｂｙ Ｂｌｕｅｓｔｏｎｅ ａｎｄ Ｈａｒｒｉｓｏｎ ｔｏ ｄｅｓｃｒｉｂｅ ｔｈｅ ｒｅｖｅｒｓａｌ ｏｆ ｆｏｒｔｕｎｅ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ ｌａｂｏｒ ｆｏｒｃｅｓ ａｎｄ ｔｈｅ ｓｈｒｉｎｋｉｎｇ ｍｉｄｄｌｅ ｃｌａｓｓ). Ｓｉｎｃｅ ｔｈｅ ｍｉｄ-1960ｓ ｔｈｒｏｕｇｈ ｔｈｅ 1990ｓ, Ａｍｅｒｉｃａｎｓ ｈａｖｅ ｂｅｅｎ ｇｅｔｔｉｎｇ ｐｏｏｒｅｒ ａｎｄ ｐｏｏｒｅｒ. Ｔｈｅ ｗａｇｅ-ｇａｐ ｂｅｔｗｅｅｎ ｔｈｅ Ａｍｅｒｉｃａ ｌｏｗｅｒ ｉｎｃｏｍｅ ｇｒｏｕｐ ａｎｄ ｔｈｅ ｕｐｐｅｒ ｏｒ ｒｉｃｈ Ａｍｅｒｉｃａ ｇｒｏｕｐ ｈａｓ ｂｅｅｎ ｅｖｅｒ ｉｎｃｒｅａｓｉｎｇ. Ｒｅｍｉｎｉｓｃｅｎｔ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ 1920ｓ ａｎｄ 1930ｓ, ｔｈｅ ｍｉｄｄｌｅ ｃｌａｓｓ, ｆｏｒｍｅｒｌｙ ｔｈｅ ｌａｒｇｅｓｔ ｃｌａｓｓ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ ｐｏｓｔ ＷＷＩＩ ｔｈｒｏｕｇｈ ｔｈｅ Ｖｉｅｔｎａｍ Ｗａｒ ｅｒａ ｈａｓ ａｌｓｏ ｂｅｅｎ ｅｖｅｒ ｄｅｃｒｅａｓｉｎｇ ｉｎ ｓｉｚｅ. Ｂｙ ｔｈｅ ｍｉｄ-1970ｓ ｇｌｏｂａｌ ｃｏｍｐｅｔｉｔｉｏｎ ｗａｓ ｅａｔｉｎｇ ａｗａｙ ａｔ Ａｍｅｒｉｃａｎ ｂｕｓｉｎｅｓｓ ｐｒｏｆｉｔｓ. Ｕ.Ｓ. ｂｕｓｉｎｅｓｓｅｓ ｂｅｇａｎ ｄｉｓｃａｒｄｉｎｇ ｔｈｅｉｒ ｓｔａｎｄａｒｄ ｐｒａｃｔｉｃｅｓ ａｎｄ ｓｈｉｆｔｅｄ ｃａｐｉｔａｌ ｉｎｔｏ ｏｖｅｒｔｌｙ ｓｐｅｃｕｌａｔｉｖｅ ｖｅｎｔｕｒｅｓ. Ｔｈｅｙ ｉｎｃｒｅａｓｅｄ ｏｆｆｓｈｏｒｅ ｉｎｖｅｓｔｍｅｎｔｓ ａｎｄ ｂｅｇａｎ ｏｕｔｓｏｕｒｃｉｎｇ ｆｏｒ ｌａｂｏｒ ａｎｄ ｍａｎｕｆａｃｔｕｒｉｎｇ ｉｎ ｓｅａｒｃｈ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ ｌｏｗｅｓｔ ｌａｂｏｒ ａｎｄ ｐｒｏｄｕｃｔｉｏｎ ｃｏｓｔｓ. Ａｎｙ ｐａｐｅｒ ｏｎ Ｒｅａｇａｎｏｍｉｃｓ ａｌｗａｙｓ ｃｏｎｔａｉｎｓ ａ ｄｅｆｉｎｉｔｉｏｎ ｏｆ Ｒｅａｇａｎｏｍｉｃｓ ｓｏ ｔｈｉｓ ｏｎｅ ｗｉｌｌ ｎｏｔ ｂｅ ａｎｙ ｄｉｆｆｅｒｅｎｔ, ｅｘｃｅｐｔ ｔｈａｔ Ｉ ｗｉｌｌ ｔｒｙ ａｎｄ ｋｅｅｐ ｉｔ ａｓ ｂｒｉｅｆ ａｓ ｐｏｓｓｉｂｌｅ ｓｏ ｗｅ ｃａｎ ｇｅｔ ｏｎ ｗｉｔｈ ｔｈｅ ｄｉｓｃｕｓｓｉｏｎ ｏｆ ｅｃｏｎｏｍｉｃ ｉｎｅｑｕａｌｉｔｙ. Ｒｅａｇａｎｏｍｉｃｓ, ｉｎ ｅｆｆｅｃｔ, ｗａｓ ａ ｐｒｏｇｒａｍ ｔｏ ｓｔｒｅｎｇｔｈｅｎ ｂｕｓｉｎｅｓｓ ａｎｄ ｉｎｄｕｓｔｒｙ ｗｈｉｌｅ ｗｅａｋｅｎｉｎｇ ｔｈｅ ｐｏｗｅｒ ｏｆ ｏｒｇａｎｉｚｅｄ ｌａｂｏｒ, ｒｅｄｕｃｅ ｆｅｄｅｒａｌ ｓｐｅｎｄｉｎｇ ｏｎ ｏｔｈｅｒ ｔｈａｎ ｍｉｌｉｔａｒｙ ｐｒｏｇｒａｍｓ, ｒｅｄｕｃｅ ｔａｘｅｓ, ａｎｄ ｒｅｇｕｌａｔｏｒｙ ａｂａｔｅｍｅｎｔ. Ｒｅａｇａｎｏｍｉｃｓ ａｓ ｄｅｓｃｒｉｂｅｄ ｂｙ ｍｏｓｔ, ｉｆ ｎｏｔ ａｌｌ ｅｃｏｎｏｍｉｓｔｓ ａｎｄ ｈｉｓｔｏｒｉａｎｓ ｗａｓ ｓｕｐｐｌｙ-ｓｉｄｅ ｅｃｏｎｏｍｉｃｓ; ｈｏｗｅｖｅｒ, ｔｈｉｓ ｉｎ ｉｔｓｅｌｆ ｄｏｅｓｎ'ｔ ｒｅａｌｌｙ ｅｘｐｌａｉｎ Ｒｅａｇａｎｏｍｉｃｓ ｂｅｃａｕｓｅ ｏｆ ｗｈａｔ ａｃｔｕａｌｌｙ ｈａｐｐｅｎｅｄ. Ｏｆｔｅｎ ｉｔ'ｓ ｓｔａｔｅｄ ｔｈａｔ ｔｈｅ Ｒｅａｇａｎ Ａｄｍｉｎｉｓｔｒａｔｉｏｎ ｗａｓ ｔｒｙｉｎｇ ｔｏ ｒｅｄｕｃｅ ｔｈｅ ｄｏｕｂｌｅ-ｄｉｇｉｔ ｉｎｆｌａｔｉｏｎ ｏｆ 1980 ａｎｄ ｔｕｒｎ ａｒｏｕｎｄ ｔｈｅ ｆａｌｌｉｎｇ ｒａｔｅ ｏｆ ｐｒｏｄｕｃｔｉｏｎ. Ｙｅｔ, ｔｈｅ ｃｏｓｔ ｔｏ ｔｈｅ ａｖｅｒａｇｅ Ａｍｅｒｉｃａｎ ｌａｂｏｒｅｒ ｄｕｒｉｎｇ ｔｈａｔ ｅｒａ ａｎｄ ｃｏｎｔｉｎｕｉｎｇ ｉｎｔｏ ｔｈｅ ｎｅｘｔ ａｄｍｉｎｉｓｔｒａｔｉｏｎ ｗａｓ ｗｈａｔ ｇａｖｅ Ｒｅａｇａｎｏｍｉｃｓ ｉｔｓ ｎｅｇａｔｉｖｅ ｒｅｐｕｔａｔｉｏｎ. Ｒｏｎａｌｄ Ｒｅａｇａｎ'ｓ ｌａｉｓｓｅｚ-ｆａｉｒｅ ｇｏｖｅｒｎｍｅｎｔ ｐｏｌｉｃｉｅｓ, ｒｅｍｉｎｉｓｃｅｎｔ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ 1920ｓ, ｉｎｃｌｕｄｅｄ ｌｅｇｉｓｌａｔｉｖｅ ａｎｄ ｌｅｇａｌ ａｃｔｉｏｎｓ ｔｈａｔ ｓｅｖｅｒｅｌｙ ｈａｍｐｅｒｅｄ ｏｒｇａｎｉｚｅｄ ｌａｂｏｒ. Ｔｈｅ "ｅｎｇｉｎｅｅｒｅｄ ｒｅｃｅｓｓｉｏｎ" ｏｆ 1980 ａｎｄ 1981-2, ａｌｏｎｇ ｗｉｔｈ ｒｅｄｕｃｔｉｏｎｓ ｉｎ ｓｏｃｉａｌ ｗｅｌｆａｒｅ ｐｒｏｇｒａｍｓ ｃｏｎｔｒｉｂｕｔｅｄ ｔｏ ｔｈｉｓ "ｇｒｅａｔ Ｕ-ｔｕｒｎ" ｉｎ ｔｈｅ ｓｔａｎｄａｒｄ ｏｆ ｌｉｖｉｎｇ ｏｆ ｍｏｓｔ Ａｍｅｒｉｃａｎｓ, ｅｍｐｌｏｙｅｄ ａｓ ｗｅｌｌ ａｓ ｕｎｅｍｐｌｏｙｅｄ, ｍｉｄｄｌｅ ｍａｎａｇｅｒｓ ａｓ ｗｅｌｌ ａｓ ｂｌｕｅ ｃｏｌｌａｒ ｗｏｒｋｅｒｓ (Ｈａｒｒｉｓｏｎ & Ｂｌｕｅｓｔｏｎｅ ｖｉｉｉ). Ａｓ ａ ｒｅｓｕｌｔ ｏｆ ｔｈｅｓｅ ａｃｔｉｏｎｓ, ｐｒｏｆｉｔ ｍａｒｇｉｎｓ ｒｏｓｅ ｓｔｅａｄｉｌｙ, ｙｅｔ ａｖｅｒａｇｅ ｗａｇｅｓ ｆｏｒ ｆａｍｉｌｉｅｓ ｈａｓ ｄｅｃｒｅａｓｅｄ ｏｒ ａｔ ｂｅｓｔ ｈａｓ ｓｏｍｅｗｈａｔ ｆｒｏｚｅｎ ｉｎ ｐｌａｃｅ. Ｔｈｅ Ｇｏｖｅｒｎｍｅｎｔ ｅｃｏｎｏｍｉｃ ｐｏｌｉｃｉｅｓ ｓｕｐｐｏｒｔｉｎｇ ｄｅｒｅｇｕｌａｔｉｏｎ ａｎｄ ｔｈｅ ｃｏｎｃｅｐｔ ｏｆ ｐｒｉｖａｔｉｚａｔｉｏｎ ｏｆ ｇｏｖｅｒｎｍｅｎｔ ｓｅｒｖｉｃｅｓ ｗｅｒｅ ａｃｔｕａｌｌｙ ｔａｋｅｎ ｉｎｉｔｉａｌｌｙ ｂｅｔｗｅｅｎ ｔｈｅ ｙｅａｒｓ 1968-1978. Ｔｈｅ Ｒｅａｇａｎ Ａｄｍｉｎｉｓｔｒａｔｉｏｎ ｓｉｍｐｌｙ ｃｏｎｔｉｎｕｅｄ ｔｈｉｓ ｔｒｅｎｄ ｔｏｗａｒｄ ｅｃｏｎｏｍｉｃ ｄｅｒｅｇｕｌａｔｉｏｎ ａｓ ｉｎｉｔｉａｔｅｄ ｕｎｄｅｒ Ｃａｒｔｅｒ. Ｔｏ ｃｏｎｔｉｎｕｅ ｔｈｅ ｗｅａｋｅｎｉｎｇ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ ｌａｂｏｒ ｐｏｏｌ, ｔｈｅ Ｒｅａｇａｎｉｔｅｓ ｅｎｇｉｎｅｅｒｅｄ ｔｈｅ ｒｅｃｅｓｓｉｏｎｓ ｏｆ 1980 ａｎｄ 1981-2 ｔｏ ｕｎｄｅｒ-ｃｕｔ ｌａｂｏｒ ｏｒｇａｎｉｚａｔｉｏｎｓ ｗｈｉｌｅ ｃｏｎｔｒｉｂｕｔｉｎｇ ｔｏ ｔｈｅ ｃｏｒｐｏｒａｔｅ ｂｏｔｔｏｍ ｌｉｎｅ (Ｈａｒｒｉｓｏｎ & Ｂｌｕｅｓｔｏｎｅ 14). Ｒｅａｇａｎ ｐｏｌｉｃｉｅｓ ｗｅｒｅ ｄｅｓｉｇｎｅｄ ｔｏ ｐｒｏｖｉｄｅ ｓｏｍｅ ｆｌｅｘｉｂｉｌｉｔｙ ｆｏｒ ｂｕｓｉｎｅｓｓｅｓ ｔｏ ｃｏｎｔａｉｎ ｐｒｏｄｕｃｔｉｏｎ ｃｏｓｔｓ, ｉｎｃｒｅａｓｅ ｐｒｏｆｉｔｓ ｂｙ ｒｅｄｕｃｉｎｇ ｌａｂｏｒ ｃｏｓｔｓ, ａｎｄ ｒｅｄｕｃｉｎｇ ｔｈｅ ｃｏｓｔｓ ｉｎｖｏｌｖｅｄ ｉｎ ｍｅｅｔｉｎｇ ｇｏｖｅｒｎｍｅｎｔ ｓｔａｎｄａｒｄｓ. Ｔｈｅ Ｇｏｖｅｒｎｍｅｎｔ'ｓ ｉｎｄｕｃｅｄ ｄｅｆｌａｔｉｏｎ, ｄｅｒｅｇｕｌａｔｉｏｎ, ｒｅｇｒｅｓｓｉｖｅ ｔａｘ ｒｅｆｏｒｍ, ｐｒｉｖａｔｉｚａｔｉｏｎ, ａｎｄ "ｕｎｉｏｎ ｂａｓｈｉｎｇ" ｈａｖｅ ｃｏｎｔｒｉｂｕｔｅｄ ｔｏ ｎｅｗ ｃｏｒｐｏｒａｔｅ ｓｔｒａｔｅｇｉｅｓ ａｎｄ ｔｈｅ ｉｎｅｑｕａｌｉｔｙ ｏｆ ｉｎｃｏｍｅ ｄｉｓｔｒｉｂｕｔｉｏｎ ｉｎ Ａｍｅｒｉｃａ(Ｈａｒｒｉｓｏｎ & Ｂｌｕｅｓｔｏｎｅ 16). Ｔｈｅ ｇｒｏｕｎｄｗｏｒｋ ｆｏｒ Ｒｅａｇａｎｏｍｉｃｓ ｐｏｌｉｃｉｅｓ ｗａｓ ｐｕｔ ｉｎ ｐｌａｃｅ ｗｅｌｌ ｂｅｆｏｒｅ ｈｉｓ ｔｉｍｅ. Ｐａｒｔ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ Ｒｅａｇａｎ ｐｌａｎ ｗａｓ ａ ｒｅｄｕｃｔｉｏｎ ｉｎ ｔａｘｅｓ. Ｈｏｗｅｖｅｒ, ｔｈｅ ｂｅｎｅｆａｃｔｏｒｓ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ ｔａｘ ｒｅｄｕｃｔｉｏｎ ｗｅｒｅ ｎｏｔ ｔｈｅ ｍａｊｏｒｉｔｙ ｏｆ ｗａｇｅ ｅａｒｎｅｒｓ. Ａｃｃｏｒｄｉｎｇ ｔｏ ｄａｔａ ｐｕｂｌｉｓｈｅｄ ｉｎ Ｋｒｕｇｍａｎ'ｓ ｂｏｏｋ, Ｐｅｄｄｌｉｎｇ Ｐｒｏｓｐｅｒｉｔｙ: Ｅｃｏｎｏｍｉｃ Ｓｅｎｓｅ ａｎｄ Ｎｏｎｓｅｎｓｅ ｉｎ ｔｈｅ Ａｇｅ ｏｆ Ｄｉｍｉｎｉｓｈｅｄ Ｅｘｐｅｃｔａｔｉｏｎｓ, ｉｎｃｏｍｅ ｄａｔａ ｆｏｒ ｔｈｅ ｐｅｒｉｏｄ ｒｅｆｌｅｃｔｓ ｔｈａｔ ｔｈｅ ｔａｘ ｒｅｄｕｃｔｉｏｎｓ ｄｕｒｉｎｇ ｔｈｅ 1980ｓ ａｃｔｕａｌｌｙ ｃｏｓｔ ｔｈｅ ｌｏｗｅｒ 60-ｐｅｒｃｅｎｔ ｉｎｃｏｍｅ ｇｒｏｕｐｓ, ｗｈｉｌｅ ｔｈｅ ｔｏｐ 40-ｐｅｒｃｅｎｔ ｉｎｃｏｍｅ ｇｒｏｕｐｓ ｓａｗ ｍｏｎｅｔａｒｙ ｉｎｃｒｅａｓｅｓ (Ｋｒｕｇｍａｎ 24-5). Ｔｈｅ ＧＩＮＩ Ｉｎｄｅｘ ｎｕｍｂｅｒｓ ｓｕｐｐｏｒｔ ｔｈｉｓ ｄｉｓｐａｒｉｔｙ. Ａｔ ｔｈｅ ｅｎｄ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ Ｃａｒｔｅｒ Ｅｒａ ｔｈｅ ＧＩＮＩ Ｉｎｄｅｘ ｂｅｆｏｒｅ ｔａｘｅｓ ｗａｓ (.403) ａｎｄ (.352) ａｆｔｅｒ ｔａｘｅｓ. Ｂｙ ｔｈｅ ｌａｔｅ 1980ｓ ｔｈｅ ｂｅｆｏｒｅ ｔａｘ ＧＩＮＩ Ｉｎｄｅｘ ｗａｓ (.423) ｗｉｔｈ ｔｈｅ ａｆｔｅｒ ｔａｘｅｓ ＧＩＮＩ ａｓ (.404). Ｔｈｉｓ ｓｈｏｗｓ ｔｈａｔ ｔｈｅｒｅ ｗａｓ ａ ｈｉｇｈｅｒ ｄｉｓｔｒｉｂｕｔｉｏｎ ｏｆ ｉｎｃｏｍｅ ｉｎ ｔｈｅ ｈａｎｄｓ ｏｆ ｆｅｗｅｒ ｐｅｏｐｌｅ (Ｋｒｕｇｍａｎ 25). Ｗｈｉｌｅ Ｐｒｅｓｉｄｅｎｔ'ｓ Ｒｅａｇａｎ ａｎｄ Ｂｕｓｈ ｆｒｏｚｅ ｔｈｅ ｍｉｎｉｍｕｍ ｗａｇｅ ｌｅｖｅｌｆｏｒ ａ ｎｉｎｅ-ｙｅａｒ ｐｅｒｉｏｄ, ｅｓｓｅｎｔｉａｌｌｙ ｃｕｔｔｉｎｇ ｐａｙ ｅａｃｈ ｙｅａｒ ａｓ ｉｎｆｌａｔｉｏｎ ｂｉｔ ｉｎｔｏ ｌｏｗｅｒ ｗａｇｅ ｅａｒｎｅｒｓ, ｔｈｅ ｓａｌａｒｉｅｓ ｏｆ ｅｘｅｃｕｔｉｖｅｓ ｓｋｙｒｏｃｋｅｔｅｄ ｄｕｒｉｎｇ ｔｈｅ 80ｓ. Ｓａｌａｒｉｅｓ ａｎｄ ｂｅｎｅｆｉｔｓ ｏｆ ｃｏｒｐｏｒａｔｅ ＣＥＯｓ ａｓ ｃｏｍｐａｒｅｄ ｔｏ ｔｈｅ ａｖｅｒａｇｅ ｆａｃｔｏｒｙ ｗｏｒｋｅｒ'ｓ ｗｅｒｅ 30 ｔｉｍｅｓ ｈｉｇｈｅｒ ｉｎ1980 ａｎｄ ｒｅａｃｈｅｄ 130-140 ｔｉｍｅｓ ｈｉｇｈｅｒ ｉｎ 1991 (Ｋｒｕｇｍａｎ 262). Ａｃｃｏｒｄｉｎｇ ｔｏ Ｋｒｕｇｍａｎ, ｔｈｅｓｅ ｓａｌａｒｉｅｓ ｄｉｄ ｎｏｔ ｃｏｍｅ ｐｒｉｍａｒｉｌｙ ｆｒｏｍ ｇｒｅａｔｅｒ ｐｒｏｆｉｔｓ, ｂｕｔ ｆｒｏｍ ａ ｌａｒｇｅｒ ｓｌｉｃｅ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ ｐｒｏｆｉｔｓ. Ｉｎ Ｔｈｏｍａｓ Ｇｅｏｇｈｅｇａｎ'ｓ ｂｏｏｋ, Ｗｈｉｃｈ Ｓｉｄｅ Ａｒｅ Ｙｏｕ Ｏｎ? Ｔｒｙｉｎｇ Ｔｏ Ｂｅ Ｆｏｒ Ｌａｂｏｒ Ｗｈｅｎ Ｉｔ'ｓ Ｆｌａｔ ｏｎ Ｉｔｓ Ｂａｃｋ, ｔｗｏ ｐｉｅｃｅｓ ｏｆ ｌｅｇｉｓｌａｔｉｏｎ ａｒｅ ｄｉｓｃｕｓｓｅｄ ａｓ ｔｈｅ ｂｅｇｉｎｎｉｎｇ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ ｅｎｄ ｆｏｒ ｏｒｇａｎｉｚｅｄ ｌａｂｏｒ ｂｅｇａｎ ｗｉｔｈ ｔｈｅ 1935 Ｗａｇｎｅｒ Ａｃｔ ａｎｄ ｔｈｅ Ｎａｔｉｏｎａｌ Ｌａｂｏｒ ｒｅｌａｔｉｏｎｓ Ｂｏａｒｄ (ＮＬＲＢ). Ｔｈｅ ｓａｍｅ ａｃｔ ｔｈａｔ ａｆｆｉｒｍｅｄ ｔｈｅ ｒｉｇｈｔ ｔｏ ｏｒｇａｎｉｚｅ ｂｕｔ ｇａｖｅ ｔｈｅ ＮＬＲＢ ｔｈｅ ｊｏｂ ｏｆ ｃｅｒｔｉｆｙｉｎｇ ｗｈｅｔｈｅｒ ｏｒ ｎｏｔ ａ ｕｎｉｏｎ ｗａｓ ｔｏ ｂｅ ｃｏｎｓｉｄｅｒｅｄ "ｏｆｆｉｃｉａｌｌｙ" ｒｅｃｏｇｎｉｚｅｄ. Ａｄｄｉｔｉｏｎａｌｌｙ, ｉｎ 1947 ａｎｄ ｔｈｅ ｐａｓｓｉｎｇ ｏｆ Ｔａｆｔ-Ｈａｒｔｌｅｙ, ｌａｂｏｒ ｃｏｕｌｄ ｎｏ ｌｏｎｇｅｒ ｏｒｇａｎｉｚｅ ｏｎ ｔｈｅ ｓｃａｌｅ ｏｆ ｕｎｉｏｎｓ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ 1930ｓ. Ｔｈｉｓ ａｃｔ ａｌｓｏ ｗｅａｋｅｎｅｄ ｕｎｉｏｎ ｐｏｗｅｒ ｂｙ ｏｕｔｌａｗｉｎｇ ｍａｓｓ ｐｉｃｋｅｔｉｎｇ, ｓｅｃｏｎｄａｒｙ ｓｔｒｉｋｅｓ ｏｎ ｎｅｕｔｒａｌ ｅｍｐｌｏｙｅｒｓ, ａｎｄ ｓｉｔ-ｄｏｗｎｓ. Ａｓ Ｇｅｏｇｈｅｇａｎ ｐｕｔｓ ｉｔ, ｔｈｅ Ｔａｆｔ-Ｈａｒｔｌｅｙ ｌｅｄ ｔｏ ｕｎｉｏｎ ｂｕｓｔｉｎｇ. Ｇｅｏｇｈｅｇａｎ, ａ ｆｏｒｍｅｒ ｌａｂｏｒ ａｔｔｏｒｎｅｙ, ｔｅｌｌｓ ｏｆ ｈｉｓ ｅｘｐｅｒｉｅｎｃｅｓ ｄｅａｌｉｎｇ ｗｉｔｈ ｏｒｇａｎｉｚｅｄ ｌａｂｏｒ, ｈｏｗ ａｎｄ ｗｈｙ ｉｔ ｈａｓ ｌｏｓｔ ｉｔｓ ａｂｉｌｉｔｙ ｔｏ ｆｉｇｈｔ. Ｈｉｓ ｅｘｐｅｒｉｅｎｃｅ ｔｈｒｏｕｇｈ ｔｈｅ ｌａｔｅ 1960ｓ ａｎｄ 1970ｓ ｄｅｓｃｒｉｂｅｓ ｔｈｅ ｌａｂｏｒ ｍｏｖｅｍｅｎｔ ａｓ ｈａｖｉｎｇ ｂｅｃｏｍｅ ｐｏｌｉｔｉｃａｌ ｄｒｉｖｅｎ ｏｒｇａｎｉｚａｔｉｏｎｓ ｃｈａｒａｃｔｅｒｉｚｅｄ ｂｙ ｔｈｅ ｓａｍｅ ｃｈａｒａｃｔｅｒｉｓｔｉｃｓ (ｇｒｅｅｄ, ｐｏｗｅｒ, ｃｏｎｔｒｏｌ, ａｎｄ ｉｎｅｑｕａｌｉｔｙ) ｏｆ ｔｈｏｓｅ ｔｈｅｙ ｄｅｓｐｉｓｅｄ - Ｂｉｇ Ｂｕｓｉｎｅｓｓ. Ｕｎｉｏｎ ｂｕｒｅａｕｃｒａｃｙ ｂｅｇａｎ ｔｏ ｒｉｖａｌ ｔｈａｔ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ ｆｅｄｅｒａｌ ａｎｄ ｓｔａｔｅ ｃｏｕｒｔ ｓｙｓｔｅｍｓ (Ｇｅｏｇｈｅｇａｎ 86-7). Ｇｅｏｇｈｅｇａｎ ｂｅｌｉｅｖｅｓ ｔｈａｔ ｐａｒｔ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ ｗｅａｋｅｎｉｎｇ ｏｆ ｕｎｉｏｎｓ ａｌｓｏ ｈａｓ ｔｏ ｄｏ ｗｉｔｈ ａ ｌａｃｋ ｏｆ ｓｙｍｐａｔｈｙ ｂｙ ｔｈｅ ａｖｅｒａｇｅ ｆａｍｉｌｙ. Ｄｕｒｉｎｇ ｔｈｅ 1970ｓ ｔｈｅ ａｖｅｒａｇｅ ｆａｍｉｌｙ ｉｎｃｏｍｅ ｗａｓ $24,000, ｗｈｉｌｅ ｔｈｅ ａｖｅｒａｇｅ ｓｔｅｅｌｗｏｒｋｅｒ ｗａｓ ｍａｋｉｎｇ $40,000. Ｔｈｅｒｅｆｏｒｅ, ｉｔ'ｓ ｎｏｔ ｔｏｏ ｓｕｒｐｒｉｓｉｎｇ ｔｏ ｓｅｅ ｔｈｅ ａｖｅｒａｇｅ Ａｍｅｒｉｃａｎ ｆａｍｉｌｙ ｗｏｕｌｄ ｎｏｔ ｂｅ ｔｏ ｕｐｓｅｔ ｉｆ ｕｎｉｏｎ ｏｒｇａｎｉｚａｔｉｏｎｓ ｗｅｒｅ ｌｏｏｓｉｎｇ ｇｒｏｕｎｄ. Ｔｈｅ ｅｘｉｓｔｅｎｃｅ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ Ｐｅｎｓｉｏｎ Ｂｅｎｅｆｉｔ Ｇｕａｒａｎｔｅｅ Ｃｏｒｐｏｒａｔｉｏｎ (ＰＢＧＣ) ａｌｓｏ ｑｕｉｅｔｅｄ ｕｎｉｏｎ ｍｅｍｂｅｒｓ ｂｙ ｉｎｓｕｒｉｎｇ ｔｈｅ ｂｅｎｅｆｉｔｓ ｏｆ ｗｏｒｋｅｒｓ ｄｉｓｐｌａｃｅｄ ｗｈｅｎ ｃｏｍｐａｎｉｅｓ ｗｅｎｔ ｂａｎｋｒｕｐｔ ｏｒ ｔｈｅｉｒ ｐｅｎｓｉｏｎ ｐｌａｎｓ ｇｏ ｂｕｓｔ. Ｉｆ ｌａｂｏｒ ｈａｄ ｎｏｔ ｂｅｅｎ ｗｅａｋｅｎｅｄ ｅｎｏｕｇｈ ｂｙ ｔｈｅ ｈｉｇｈ ｕｎｅｍｐｌｏｙｍｅｎｔ ｌｅｖｅｌｓ ｉｎ ｔｈｅ ｌａｔｅ 1970ｓ, Ｒｅａｇａｎ'ｓ ｆｉｒｍｉｎｇ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ ＰＡＴＣＯ ｍｅｍｂｅｒｓ ｓｅｎｔ ａ ｃｌｅａｒ ｍｅｓｓａｇｅ ｔｏ ｎｏｔ ｏｎｌｙ ｔｈｅ ｕｎｉｏｎｓ, ｂｕｔ ａｌｓｏ ｔｏ ｔｈｅ ｃｏｕｒｔｓ ａｓ ｔｏ ｈｉｓ ｌａｃｋ ｏｆ ｓｕｐｐｏｒｔ ｆｏｒ ｏｒｇａｎｉｚｅｄ ｌａｂｏｒ. Ｄｕｒｉｎｇ ｔｈｅ 1980ｓ, ｔｈｅ Ｕ.Ｓ. ｌｏｓｔ ｏｎｅ ｏｕｔ ｏｆ ｔｈｒｅｅ ｈｅａｖｙ ｉｎｄｕｓｔｒｉａｌ ｊｏｂｓ. Ｄｅｒｅｇｕｌａｔｉｏｎ ｕｎｄｅｒ Ｃａｒｔｅｒ ａｎｄ Ｒｅａｇａｎ ｏｐｅｎｅｄ ｔｈｅ ｉｎｄｕｓｔｒｉｅｓ ｏｆ ｓｔｅｅｌ, ａｕｔｏｍｏｔｉｖｅ, ｃａｒｐｅｎｔｅｒｓ, ａｎｄ ｔｒｕｃｋｉｎｇ ｔｏ ｗｈａｔ Ｇｅｏｇｈｅｇａｎ ｃａｌｌｅｄ ｇｙｐｓｉｅｓ - ｓｍａｌｌ ｏｗｎｅｒ ｏｐｅｒａｔｏｒｓ (Ｇｅｏｇｈｅｇａｎ 139). "Ｔｈｅ ｏｌｄ Ｔｅａｍｓｔｅｒ ｏｒｄｅｒ ｃｏｌｌａｐｓｅｄ ａｎｄ ｔｈｏｕｓａｎｄｓ ｏｆ ｆｉｒｍｓ ｃｌｏｓｅｄ (Ｇｅｏｇｈｅｇａｎ 139)." Ｄｕｒｉｎｇ ｔｈｅ ｌａｔｅ 1970ｓ ａｎｄ ｉｎｔｏ ｔｈｅ 1980ｓ, ｔｈｅ Ｔｅａｍｓｔｅｒ ｍｅｍｂｅｒｓｈｉｐ ｆｅｌｌ ｆｒｏｍ 2.2 ｍｉｌｌｉｏｎ ｔｏ 1.6 ｍｉｌｌｉｏｎ. Ｙｅｔ, ｏｒｇａｎｉｚｅｄ ｌａｂｏｒ ｗａｓ ｎｏｔ ｔｈｅ ｏｎｌｙ ｏｎｅ ｔｏ ｆｅｅｌ ｔｈｅ ｒｅｄｕｃｔｉｏｎ ｏｆ ｇｏｖｅｒｎｍｅｎｔ ｓｕｐｐｏｒｔ. Ａｌｓｏ ｏｎ ｔｈｅ ｈｉｔ ｌｉｓｔ ｆｏｒ Ｒｅａｇａｎｏｍｉｃｓ, ｗａｓ ｔｈｅ ｒｅｄｕｃｔｉｏｎ ｏｆ ｓｏｃｉａｌ ｐｒｏｇｒａｍｓ. Ｓｏｃｉａｌ ｄｅｒｅｇｕｌａｔｉｏｎ, ａｓ ｄｅｓｃｒｉｂｅｄ ｂｙ Ｈａｒｒｉｓｏｎ ａｎｄ Ｂｌｕｅｓｔｏｎｅ, ｗａｓ ａ ｔｒｕｅ ｉｎｎｏｖａｔｉｏｎ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ Ｒｅａｇａｎ Ａｄｍｉｎｉｓｔｒａｔｉｏｎ. Ｔｈｅ ｒｅｓｕｌｔ ｏｆ ｔｈｉｓ ｐｒｏｇｒａｍ ｗａｓ ａ ｓｏｆｔｅｎｉｎｇ ｏｆ ｓａｆｅｔｙ ａｎｄ ｅｎｖｉｒｏｎｍｅｎｔａｌ ｒｅｇｕｌａｔｉｏｎｓ ｔｏ ｅａｓｅ ｔｈｅ ｂｕｒｄｅｎ ｏｎ ｉｎｄｕｓｔｒｙ. Ｆｕｌｌｔｉｍｅ ｍａｎｎｉｎｇ ｗａｓ ｄｒａｓｔｉｃａｌｌｙ ｒｅｄｕｃｅｄ ｉｎ ｗａｔｃｈｄｏｇ ａｇｅｎｃｉｅｓ ｔａｓｋｅｄ ｔｏ ｍｏｎｉｔｏｒ ｔｈｅ ｖａｒｉｏｕｓ ｉｎｄｕｓｔｒｉｅｓ. Ｔｈｅ ｐｒｏｇｒａｍ ｉｎｃｌｕｄｅｄ ｆｒｅｅｚｉｎｇ ｔｈｅ ｍｉｎｉｍｕｍ ｗａｇｅ ａｎｄ ｓｈｉｆｔｉｎｇ ａｇａｉｎｓｔ ｆｅｄｅｒａｌ ｐｒｏｔｅｃｔｉｏｎ ｏｆ ｗｏｒｋｅｒｓ ｒｉｇｈｔｓ ａｎｄ ｕｎｉｏｎｓ. Ｔｈｅ ｒｅｓｕｌｔｓ ｏｆ ｔｈｅｓｅ ｐｏｌｉｃｉｅｓ ｄｉｒｅｃｔｌｙ ｉｍｐａｃｔｅｄ ｔｈｅ ｒｅｄｉｓｔｒｉｂｕｔｉｏｎ ｏｆ ｉｎｃｏｍｅ ｉｎ ｆａｖｏｒ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ ｈｉｇｈｅｒ ｉｎｃｏｍｅ ｇｒｏｕｐ (Ｈａｒｒｉｓｏｎ & Ｂｌｕｅｓｔｏｎｅ 162). Ｒｅａｇａｎ ｗａｓ ｎｏｔ ｔｈｅ ｏｎｌｙ ｏｎｅ ｃｏｎｄｕｃｔｉｎｇ ａ ｒｅｄｕｃｔｉｏｎ ｐｒｏｇｒａｍ. Ｗｉｔｈ ｔｈｅ ｗｅａｋｅｎｉｎｇ ｏｆ ｏｒｇａｎｉｚｅｄ ｌａｂｏｒ ｂｙ ｄｅｒｅｇｕｌａｔｉｏｎ, ｂｕｓｉｎｅｓｓｅｓ ｂｅｇａｎ ｅｘｐｅｒｉｍｅｎｔｉｎｇ ｗｉｔｈ ｏｒｇａｎｉｚａｔｉｏｎａｌ ｃｈａｎｇｅｓ ｔｏ ｉｎｃｌｕｄｅ ｗｏｒｋ, ｌａｂｏｒ, ｍａｎａｇｅｍｅｎｔ ｒｅｌａｔｉｏｎｓ, ａｎｄ ｆｌｅｘｉｂｌｅ ａｒｒａｎｇｅｍｅｎｔｓ ｗｉｔｈ ｅｍｐｌｏｙｅｅｓ, ｓｕｂｃｏｎｔｒａｃｔｏｒｓ, ｏｔｈｅｒｗｉｓｅ ｋｎｏｗｎ ａｓ ｃｏｒｐｏｒａｔｅ ｒｅｓｔｒｕｃｔｕｒｉｎｇ. Ｔｏ ｂｅｔｔｅｒ ｃｏｍｐｅｔｅ ｉｎ ａ ｇｌｏｂａｌ ｅｃｏｎｏｍｙ, ＵＳ ｉｎｄｕｓｔｒｉｅｓ ａｄｏｐｔｅｄ ａ ｐｒｏｇｒａｍ ｏｆ "ｒｅｓｔｒｕｃｔｕｒｉｎｇ". Ａｓ Ｈａｒｒｉｓｏｎ ａｎｄ Ｂｌｕｅｓｔｏｎｅ ｓｔａｔｅ ｉｔ, "Ｇｌｏｂａｌｉｚａｔｉｏｎ ｏｆ ｐｒｏｄｕｃｔｉｏｎ ｗａｓ ｎｏ ｌｏｎｇｅｒ ｓｕｐｐｌｅｍｅｎｔｉｎｇ ｄｏｍｅｓｔｉｃ ｍａｎｕｆａｃｔｕｒｉｎｇ ｂｕｔ ｒｅｐｌａｃｉｎｇ ｉｔ (Ｈａｒｒｉｓｏｎ & Ｂｌｕｅｓｔｏｎｅ 28)."Ｒｅｓｔｒｕｃｔｕｒｉｎｇ ｉｎｖｏｌｖｅｄ ｃｒｅａｔｉｎｇ ｍｕｌｔｉｎａｔｉｏｎａｌ ｃｏｒｐｏｒａｔｉｏｎｓ ｗｉｔｈ ｉｔｓ ｈｅａｄｑｕａｒｔｅｒｓ ａｎｄ ｓｕｐｐｏｒｔ ｆｕｎｃｔｉｏｎｓ ｉｎ ｔｈｅ ｍａｊｏｒ ｃａｐｉｔａｌｉｓｔ ｃｏｕｎｔｒｉｅｓ. Ｔｈｅ ｒｅｄｕｃｅｄ ｃｏｓｔｓ ｒｅｓｕｌｔｉｎｇ ｆｒｏｍ ｒｅｌｏｃａｔｉｎｇ ｎｏ-ｓｋｉｌｌ ｊｏｂｓ, ｌｏｗ-ｓｋｉｌｌ ｊｏｂｓ, ａｓｓｅｍｂｌｙ, ａｎｄ ｍａｎｕｆａｃｔｕｒｉｎｇ ｏｐｅｒａｔｉｏｎｓ ｔｏ ｌｏｗ ｗａｇｅ ａｒｅａｓ, ｖａｌｉｄａｔｅｄ ｔｈｅ ｐｒａｃｔｉｃｅ ｏｆ ｏｕｔｓｏｕｒｃｉｎｇ. Ｉｎ ｓｏｍｅ ｃａｓｅｓ ｂｕｓｉｎｅｓｓｅｓ ｊｕｓｔ ｓｉｍｐｌｙ ｇｏｔ ｏｕｔ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ ｐｒｏｄｕｃｔｉｏｎ ｅｎｄ ａｎｄ ｆｏｕｎｄ ａｌｔｅｒｎａｔｅ "ｗａｙｓ ｏｆ ｍａｋｉｎｇ ｐａｐｅｒ ｐｒｏｆｉｔｓ" ｏｒ ｆｏｕｎｄ ｏｔｈｅｒ ｗａｙｓ ｔｏ ｒｅｄｕｃｅ ｌａｂｏｒ ｃｏｓｔｓ. Ｃｒｅａｔｉｖｅ ｗａｇｅ ｒｅｄｕｃｔｉｏｎ ｐｒｏｇｒａｍｓ ｓｕｃｈ ａｓ ｔｈｅ ｔｗｏ-ｔｉｅｒ ｐａｙ ｓｙｓｔｅｍ ａｎｄ ｃｏｎｖｅｒｓｉｏｎ ｏｆ ａ ｐｅｒｃｅｎｔａｇｅ ｏｆ ｆｕｌｌ-ｔｉｍｅ ｅｍｐｌｏｙｅｅｓ ｔｏ ｃｏｎｔｉｎｇｅｎｃｙ ｌａｂｏｒ ｅｍｐｌｏｙｅｅｓ (ｐａｒｔ-ｔｉｍｅ ａｎｄ ｔｅｍｐｏｒａｒｙ ｅｍｐｌｏｙｅｅｓ) ｏｒ ａ ｃｏｍｂｉｎａｔｉｏｎ ｏｆ ｍｅｔｈｏｄｓ ｂｅｃａｍｅ (ａｎｄ ａｒｅ ｓｔｉｌｌ) ｔｈｅ ｎｏｒｍａｌ ｐｒａｃｔｉｃｅ. Ｔｈｅｓｅ ｍｅｔｈｏｄｓ ｐｒｏｖｉｄｅｄ ａ ｗａｙ ｏｆ ｒｅｄｕｃｉｎｇ ｆｕｌｌ-ｔｉｍｅ ｌａｂｏｒ ｗａｇｅ ｃｏｓｔｓ, ｗｈｉｃｈ ｉｎｃｌｕｄｅｄ ａ ｒｅｄｕｃｔｉｏｎ ｉｎ ｅｍｐｌｏｙｅｅ ｂｅｎｅｆｉｔｓ ｃｏｓｔ. Ｔｈｅ ｔｗｏ-ｔｉｅｒ ｗａｇｅ ｓｙｓｔｅｍ ａｌｌｏｗｅｄ ｒｅｄｕｃｅｄ ｗａｇｅｓ ｆｏｒ ｅｍｐｌｏｙｅｅｓ ｄｕｒｉｎｇ ｔｈｅ ｎｅｗ ｗｏｒｋｅｒ'ｓ ｆｉｒｓｔ ｆｅｗ ｗｅｅｋｓ ｏｒ ｍｏｎｔｈｓ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ ｎｏｒｍａｌ ｐｒｏｂａｔｉｏｎ ｐｅｒｉｏｄ. Ｎｅｗ ｅｍｐｌｏｙｅｅｓ ｗｏｕｌｄ ｏｎｌｙ ｒｅｃｅｉｖｅ 75 ｔｏ 80-ｐｅｒｃｅｎｔ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ ｎｏｒｍａｌ ｗａｇｅ ｄｕｒｉｎｇ ａ ｐｒｏｂａｔｉｏｎ ｐｅｒｉｏｄ (ｔｈｅ ｐｒｏｂａｔｉｏｎ ｐｅｒｉｏｄ ｕｓｕａｌｌｙ ｅｑｕａｔｅｄ ｔｏ ｔｈｅ ｂｕｓｉｎｅｓｓ'ｓ ｅｍｐｌｏｙｅｅ ｔｕｒｎｏｖｅｒ ｐｅｒｉｏｄ). Ｓｉｎｃｅ ｅｍｐｌｏｙｅｅ ｔｕｒｎｏｖｅｒ ｉｓ ｈｉｇｈｅｓｔ ｄｕｒｉｎｇ ｔｈｅ ｆｉｒｓｔ ｆｅｗ ｍｏｎｔｈｓ ｏｆ ｅｍｐｌｏｙｍｅｎｔ, ｂｕｓｉｎｅｓｓｅｓ ｃｏｕｌｄ ｓａｖｅ ａｔ ｌｅａｓｔ 20 ｔｏ 25-ｐｅｒｃｅｎｔ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ ｗａｇｅｓ ｔｈｅｙ ｗｏｕｌｄ ｈａｖｅ ｐａｉｄ ｔｏ ａｎ ｅｍｐｌｏｙｅｅ ｄｕｒｉｎｇ ｔｈａｔ ｓａｍｅ ｐｅｒｉｏｄ. Ｃｏｎｔｉｎｇｅｎｃｙ ｌａｂｏｒ ｐｏｏｌｓ ｗｅｒｅ (ａｎｄ ｓｔｉｌｌ ａｒｅ) ｎｏｔ ｏｒｇａｎｉｚｅｄ ｕｎｄｅｒ ａ ｕｎｉｏｎ. Ｔｈｅｙ ｐｒｏｖｉｄｅｄ (ａｎｄ ｓｔｉｌｌ ｄｏ) ｆｌｅｘｉｂｉｌｉｔｙ ｔｏ ｔａｉｌｏｒ ｔｈｅｉｒ ｗｏｒｋ ｆｏｒｃｅ ｎｅｅｄｓ ｔｏ ｔｈｅ ｐｒｏｄｕｃｔｉｏｎ ｎｅｅｄｓ. Ｃｏｎｔｉｎｇｅｎｃｙ ｌａｂｏｒ ｉｎｃｌｕｄｅｄ ｐａｒｔ-ｔｉｍｅ ａｎｄ ｔｅｍｐｏｒａｒｙ ｅｍｐｌｏｙｅｅｓ. Ｂｅｎｅｆｉｔ ｐａｃｋａｇｅｓ ｆｏｒ ｔｈｅｓｅ ｃｏｎｔｉｎｇｅｎｃｙ ｅｍｐｌｏｙｅｅｓ ｗｅｒｅ ｅｉｔｈｅｒ ｎｏｎ-ｅｘｉｓｔｅｎｔ ｏｒ ａｔ ｌｅａｓｔ ｓｍａｌｌ ｅｎｏｕｇｈ ｔｏ ｓｔｉｌｌ ｋｅｅｐ ｌａｂｏｒ ｃｏｓｔｓ ｌｏｗ. Ａ ｆｕｒｔｈｅｒ ｍａｊｏｒ ｂｅｎｅｆｉｔ ｏｆ ｔｈｅｓｅ ｃｒｅａｔｉｖｅ ｐａｙ ｓｙｓｔｅｍｓ ｗａｓ ｔｈａｔ ｔｈｅｙ ｐｒｏｖｉｄｅｄ ａ ｗａｙ ｔｏ ａｖｏｉｄ ｕｎｉｏｎｓ ｏｒ ａｔ ｌｅａｓｔ ｋｅｅｐ ｔｈｅ ｉｍｐａｃｔ ｏｆ ｕｎｉｏｎ ａｃｔｉｏｎｓ ａｔ ａ ｍｉｎｉｍｕｍ. Ｋｅｅｐｉｎｇ ｌａｂｏｒ ｃｏｓｔｓ ｆｒｏｍ ｒｉｓｉｎｇ ｉｓ ｎｏｔ ｔｈｅ ｏｎｌｙ ｒｅａｓｏｎ ｔｈａｔ Ｕ.Ｓ. ｆｉｒｍｓ ｈａｖｅ ｇｏｎｅ ａｂｒｏａｄ ｔｏ ｓｅｔ ｕｐ ａｓｓｅｍｂｌｙ ｏｒ ｓｅｒｖｉｃｅ ｏｐｅｒａｔｉｏｎｓ. Ｓｏｍｅ ｆｉｒｍｓ ｈａｖｅ ｄｏｎｅ ｓｏ ｔｏ ｉｍｐｒｏｖｅ ｔｈｅｉｒ ｃｈａｎｃｅ ｏｆ ｓｅｌｌｉｎｇ ｔｏ ｆｏｒｅｉｇｎ ｍａｒｋｅｔｓ ｏｒ ｔｏ ｔａｋｅ ａｄｖａｎｔａｇｅ ｏｆ ｆｏｒｅｉｇｎ ｇｏｖｅｒｎｍｅｎｔ ｉｎｃｅｎｔｉｖｅｓ (ｔａｘｅｓ) (Ｈａｒｒｉｓｏｎ & Ｂｌｕｅｓｔｏｎｅ 31). Ｂｕｔ ｗｈａｔ ｉｓ ｔｈｅ ｃｏｓｔ ｏｆ ｔｈｅｓｅ ｏｕｔｓｏｕｒｃｉｎｇ? Ｔｈｅ ｒｅｓｕｌｔ ｏｆ ｒｅｄｕｃｔｉｏｎｓ ｉｎ ｄｏｍｅｓｔｉｃ ｐｒｏｄｕｃｔｉｏｎ ａｎｄ ｏｕｔｓｏｕｒｃｉｎｇ ｗａｓ ａ ｒｅｄｕｃｔｉｏｎ ｉｎ Ｕ.Ｓ. ｐｒｏｄｕｃｔｉｏｎ ｅｍｐｌｏｙｍｅｎｔ. Ｅｍｐｌｏｙｍｅｎｔ ｉｎ ｔｈｅ ｍａｎｕｆａｃｔｕｒｉｎｇ ａｒｅａ ｆｅｌｌ ｓｅｖｅｎ-ｐｅｒｃｅｎｔ ｂｅｔｗｅｅｎ 1968 ａｎｄ 1979, ｃｏｎｔｉｎｕｉｎｇ ｔｏ ｆａｌｌ ｔｗｅｌｖｅ-ｐｅｒｃｅｎｔ ｍｏｒｅ ｔｈｒｏｕｇｈ ｔｈｅ 1980ｓ ａｎｄ 1990ｓ (Ｓｌａｔｅｒ 143). Ｅｍｐｌｏｙｍｅｎｔ ｉｎ ｍｉｎｉｎｇ ａｃｔｕａｌｌｙ ｒｏｓｅ ｕｎｔｉｌ 1981 ｏｎｌｙ ｔｏ ｆａｌｌ ｎｅａｒｌｙ ｉｎ ｈａｌｆ ｄｕｒｉｎｇ ｔｈｅ 1980ｓ ｔｈｒｏｕｇｈ ｔｈｅ 1990ｓ (Ｓｌａｔｅｒ 129). Ｆｒｏｍ 1973 ｔｏ 1986 ａｖｅｒａｇｅ ｗａｇｅｓ ｈａｖｅ ｄｒｏｐｐｅｄ ｉｎ ｂｕｙｉｎｇ ｐｏｗｅｒ ｂｙ ｎｅａｒｌｙ 14-ｐｅｒｃｅｎｔ (Ｈａｒｒｉｓｏｎ & Ｂｌｕｅｓｔｏｎｅ 113).Ｉｎ 1986, ｔｈｅ ａｖｅｒａｇｅ ａｎｎｕａｌ ｉｎｃｏｍｅ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ ｐｏｏｒｅｓｔ 20-ｐｅｒｃｅｎｔ ｏｆ ａｌｌ ｆａｍｉｌｉｅｓ ｗａｓ $8,033. Ｔｈｉｓ ｗａｓ ｍｏｒｅ ｔｈａｎ $1,740 ｌｅｓｓ ｔｈａｎ ｔｈｅｙ ｗｏｕｌｄ ｈａｖｅ ｒｅｃｅｉｖｅｄ ｂａｓｅｄ ｏｎ 1968 ｉｎｃｏｍｅ ｌｅｖｅｌｓ (Ｈａｒｒｉｓｏｎ & Ｂｌｕｅｓｔｏｎｅ 131). Ｔｈｅ ｒｉｃｈｅｓｔ 20-ｐｅｒｃｅｎｔ ｒｅｃｅｉｖｅｄ $5,600 ｍｏｒｅ ｐｅｒ ｙｅａｒ ｉｎ 1986, ｔｈａｎ ｔｈｅｙ ｗｏｕｌｄ ｈａｖｅ ｂａｓｅｄ ｏｎ 1968 ｍｏｎｅｔａｒｙ ｖａｌｕｅｓ (Ｈａｒｒｉｓｏｎ & Ｂｌｕｅｓｔｏｎｅ 131). Ａｓ ａ ｒｅｓｕｌｔ, ｔｈｅ ｔｒａｄｉｔｉｏｎａｌ ｏｎｅ-ｉｎｃｏｍｅ ｈｏｕｓｅｈｏｌｄ ｗａｓ ｎｏ ｌｏｎｇｅｒ ｓｕｆｆｉｃｉｅｎｔ ｔｏ ｋｅｅｐ ｕｐ ｗｉｔｈ ｔｈｅ ｆａｍｉｌｙ ｅｃｏｎｏｍｉｃ ｎｅｅｄｓ. Ｍｏｒｅ ｆａｍｉｌｙ ｍｅｍｂｅｒｓ ｅｎｔｅｒｅｄ ｔｈｅ ｗｏｒｋ ｆｏｒｃｅ ｉｎ ｏｒｄｅｒ ｔｏ ｉｎｃｒｅａｓｅ ｏｒ ｓｕｓｔａｉｎ ｒｅａｌ ｉｎｃｏｍｅ ｐｕｒｃｈａｓｉｎｇ ｐｏｗｅｒ. Ｔｈｉｓ ｉｎｃｌｕｄｅｄ ｆａｍｉｌｙ ｍｅｍｂｅｒｓ ｔａｋｉｎｇ ｏｎ ｅｘｔｒａ ｊｏｂｓ ｏｒ ｍｏｏｎｌｉｇｈｔｉｎｇ ｉｎ ｏｒｄｅｒ ｔｏ ｍａｋｅ ｅｎｄｓ ｍｅｅｔ. Ｄｏｕｂｌｅ ｉｎｃｏｍｅ ｆａｍｉｌｉｅｓ ｗｅｒｅ ｎｏｔ ａ ｕｎｉｑｕｅｎｅｓｓ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ ｌｏｗｅｓｔ ｉｎｃｏｍｅ ｅａｒｎｅｒｓ, ｍｉｄｄｌｅ-ｃｌａｓｓ Ａｍｅｒｉｃａ ａｌｓｏ ｌｏｓｔ, ｏｒ ａｔ ｌｅａｓｔ ｓｕｓｔａｉｎｅｄ, ｂｕｙｉｎｇ ｐｏｗｅｒ ｄｕｒｉｎｇ ｔｈｅ 1980ｓ. Ｈａｒｒｉｓｏｎ ａｎｄ Ｂｌｕｅｓｔｏｎｅ ｄｅｆｉｎｅ ｗｈａｔ ｉｓ ｕｓｕａｌｌｙ ｃｏｎｓｉｄｅｒｅｄ ｔｈｅ ｍｉｄｄｌｅ-ｃｌａｓｓ ｉｎｃｏｍｅ ｅａｒｎｅｒｓ, ａｓ ｔｈｏｓｅ ｍａｋｉｎｇ $20,000 ｔｏ $50,000 ａｎｎｕａｌｌｙ. Ｔｈｉｓ ｇｒｏｕｐ ｓｈｒａｎｋ ｆｒｏｍ 53-ｐｅｒｃｅｎｔ ｉｎ 1973 ｔｏ 47.9-ｐｅｒｃｅｎｔ ｉｎ 1984. Ｅｉｔｈｅｒ ｔｈｅｒｅ ｅｘｉｓｔｓ ａ ｓｉｇｎｉｆｉｃａｎｔ ｐｏｌａｒｉｚａｔｉｏｎ ｏｆ ｉｎｃｏｍｅ ｄｉｓｔｒｉｂｕｔｉｏｎ ａｒｏｕｎｄ ｔｈｅ ｍｉｄｄｌｅ-ｃｌａｓｓ ｏｒ ｔｈｅ ｍｉｄｄｌｅ-ｃｌａｓｓ ｉｓ ｎｏｗ ｗｈａｔ ｕｓｅｄ ｔｏ ｂｅ ｔｈｅ ｌｏｗｅｒ-ｅｎｄ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ ｕｐｐｅｒ-ｃｌａｓｓ ｉｎｃｏｍｅ. Ｔｈｅ ｃｏｕｎｔｅｒ ａｒｇｕｍｅｎｔ ａｇａｉｎｓｔ ｔｈｅｓｅ ｉｎｃｏｍｅ ｄｉｓｐａｒｉｔｙ ｉｓｓｕｅｓ ｉｓ ａｔｔｒｉｂｕｔｅｄ ｂｙ ｓｏｍｅ ａｓ ｓｉｍｐｌｙ ａ ｍａｔｔｅｒ ｏｆ ｎｏｒｍａｌ ｂｕｓｉｎｅｓｓ ｃｙｃｌｅｓ. Ｏｎｅ ａｒｇｕｍｅｎｔ ｐｒｅｓｅｎｔｅｄ ｔｏ ｅｘｐｌａｉｎ ｔｈｉｓ ｐｒｏｂｌｅｍ ｉｓ ｔｈａｔ ｔｈｅ "ｌｏｗ ｗａｇｅ ｅｘｐｌｏｓｉｏｎ ｉｓ ｍｏｓｔｌｙ ａ ｓｔａｔｉｓｔｉｃａｌ ｉｌｌｕｓｉｏｎ, ｒｅｆｌｅｃｔｉｎｇ ｔｈｅ ｉｍｐａｃｔ ｏｆ ｉｎｆｌａｔｉｏｎ ａｎｄ ｒｅｃｅｓｓｉｏｎ ｏｎ ｗｏｒｋｅｒｓ' ｅａｒｎｉｎｇｓ (Ｇｅｏｇｈｅｇａｎ 124)." Ａｎｏｔｈｅｒ ｐｒｏｐｏｓａｌ ｉｓ ｔｏ ａｔｔｒｉｂｕｔｅ ｔｈｅ ｐｒｏｂｌｅｍ ｔｏ ａ ｌａｒｇｅ ｉｎｆｌｕｘ ｏｆ ｂａｂｙ ｂｏｏｍｅｒｓ ｉｎｔｏ ｔｈｅ ｗｏｒｋ ｆｏｒｃｅ. Ｈｏｗｅｖｅｒ, ａｆｔｅｒ ａｃｃｏｕｎｔｉｎｇ ｆｏｒ ｔｈｅ ｂｕｓｉｎｅｓｓ ｃｙｃｌｅ, ｆｏｒ ｐｒｏｄｕｃｔｉｖｉｔｙ, ａｎｄ ｆｏｒ ｔｈｅ ｓｈｒｉｎｋａｇｅ ｏｆ ｍａｎｕｆａｃｔｕｒｉｎｇ ｊｏｂｓ, ｔｈｅ ｇｒｏｗｉｎｇ ｐｒｏｐｏｒｔｉｏｎ ｏｆ ｂａｂｙ ｂｏｏｍｅｒｓ ｉｎ ｔｈｅ ｗｏｒｋ ｆｏｒｃｅ ｃｏｎｔｒｉｂｕｔｅｓ ｎｏｔｈｉｎｇ ｔｏ ａｎ ｅｘｐｌａｎａｔｉｏｎ ｏｆ ｌｏｗ ｗａｇｅｓ. Ｔｈｅ ｉｎｅｑｕａｌｉｔｙ ｏｆ ｉｎｃｏｍｅ ｉｓ ｎｏｔ ｌｉｍｉｔｅｄ ｔｏ ｏｎｌｙ ａ ｓｐｅｃｉｆｉｃ ａｇｅ ｇｒｏｕｐ (Ｈａｒｒｉｓｏｎ & Ｂｌｕｅｓｔｏｎｅ 125). Ｏｆ ｃｏｕｒｓｅ ｔｈｅｒｅ ａｒｅ ｍａｎｙ ｓｕｐｐｏｒｔｅｒｓ ｏｆ Ｒｅａｇａｎｏｍｉｃｓ ｔｈａｔ ｗｉｌｌ ｐｒｏｄｕｃｅ ｓｔａｔｉｓｔｉｃｓ ｓｈｏｗｉｎｇ ｈｏｗ ｔｈｅ ＧＮＰ ｗａｓ ｓｕｓｔａｉｎｅｄ ｄｕｒｉｎｇ ｔｈｅ 1980ｓ; ｔｈｅｒｅ ｉｓ ｒｅａｌｌｙ ｎｏ ｍｙｓｔｅｒｙ ｈｅｒｅ. Ａ ｍａｊｏｒ ｐａｒｔ ｏｆ Ｒｅａｇａｎ'ｓ ｐｏｌｉｃｙ ｗａｓ ｔｏ ｅｎｈａｎｃｅ ｔｈｅ ｍｉｌｉｔａｒｙ ｃｏｍｐｌｅｘ ｉｎ ｏｒｄｅｒ ｔｏ ｓｔａｙ ａｈｅａｄ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ ｐｅｒｃｅｉｖｅｄ ｃｏｍｍｕｎｉｓｔ ｔｈｒｅａｔ. Ｄｕｒｉｎｇ ｔｈｉｓ ｐｅｒｉｏｄ ｔｈｅ ｇｏｖｅｒｎｍｅｎｔ ｗｅｎｔ ｏｎ ａ ｓｐｅｎｄｉｎｇ ｓｐｒｅｅ ｆｉｎａｎｃｅｄ ｂｙ ｔｈｅ ｄｅｆｉｃｉｔ. ＤＯＤ ｓｐｅｎｄｉｎｇ ｄｏｕｂｌｅｄ $134 ｂｉｌｌｉｏｎ ｉｎ 1980 ｔｏ $282 ｂｉｌｌｉｏｎ ｉｎ 1987 (Ｈａｒｒｉｓｏｎ & Ｂｌｕｅｓｔｏｎｅ 149). Ｓｔｒａｎｇｅｌｙ ｅｎｏｕｇｈ, ｔｈｉｓ ｐｅｒｉｏｄ ｓｅｅｍｓ ｔｏ ｂｅ ｔｈｅ ｅｒａ ｏｆ ｄｅｂｔ ｆｏｒ ｂｏｔｈ ｔｈｅ ｇｏｖｅｒｎｍｅｎｔ ａｎｄ ｔｈｅ Ａｍｅｒｉｃａｎ ｉｎｃｏｍｅ ｅａｒｎｅｒｓ. Ｔｈｉｓ ｌｉｖｉｎｇ ｏｎ ｄｅｂｔ ａｎｄ ｂｕｙｉｎｇ ｔｉｍｅ ｗａｓ ｓｕｆｆｉｃｉｅｎｔ ｔｏ ｆｕｅｌ ａ ｓｈｏｒｔ-ｔｅｒｍ ｒｅｃｏｖｅｒｙ (Ｈａｒｒｉｓｏｎ & Ｂｌｕｅｓｔｏｎｅ 147). Ｂｕｔ ｍｏｓｔ ｏｆ ａｌｌ, ｄｕｒｉｎｇ ｔｈｅ Ｒｅａｇａｎ ｙｅａｒ'ｓ ｐｅｏｐｌｅ ｗｅｎｔ ｉｎｔｏ ｄｅｂｔ. Ｔｈｅ ｔｏｔａｌ ａｍｏｕｎｔ ｂｏｒｒｏｗｅｄ ｂｙ ｃｏｎｓｕｍｅｒｓ ｎｅａｒｌｙ ｄｏｕｂｌｅｄ ｂｅｔｗｅｅｎ 1981 ａｎｄ 1986, ｆｒｏｍ $394 Ｂｉｌｌｉｏｎ ｔｏ $739 Ｂｉｌｌｉｏｎ. Ｆａｍｉｌｉｅｓ ｅｘｐａｎｄｅｄ ｔｈｅｉｒ ｕｓｅ ｏｆ "ｐｌａｓｔｉｃ ｍｏｎｅｙ" ｅｖｅｎ ｆａｓｔｅｒ. Ｒｅｖｏｌｖｉｎｇ ｉｎｓｔａｌｌｍｅｎｔ ｃｒｅｄｉｔ ｇｒｅｗ ｆｒｏｍ $55 ｂｉｌｌｉｏｎ ｉｎ 1980 ｔｏｏ ｍｏｒｅ ｔｈａｎ $128 ｂｉｌｌｉｏｎ ｉｎ 1986 (Ｈａｒｒｉｓｏｎ & Ｂｌｕｅｓｔｏｎｅ 149). Ｆａｍｉｌｉｅｓ ｆｉｌｉｎｇ ｃｈａｐｔｅｒ 13 ｏｆ ｔｈｅ Ｂａｎｋｒｕｐｔｃｙ Ｃｏｄｅ ｇｒｅｗ ｆｒｏｍ ａｎ ａｖｅｒａｇｅ ｏｆ ｌｅｓｓ ｔｈａｎ 39,000 ｐｅｒ ｙｅａｒ (1975-1980) ｔｏ ａｌｍｏｓｔ 95,000 ａ ｙｅａｒ (1981-1984) (Ｈａｒｒｉｓｏｎ & Ｂｌｕｅｓｔｏｎｅ 152).Ｉｎ ｅｆｆｅｃｔ, ｍｏｓｔ Ａｍｅｒｉｃａｎｓ ｄｕｒｉｎｇ ｔｈｅ Ｒｅａｇａｎ Ｙｅａｒｓ ｗｅｎｔ ｉｎｔｏ ｄｅｂｔ. Ｉｔ ｂｅｃａｍｅ ａ ｊｏｋｅ ｔｏ ｓａｙ, "ｗｅ ａｒｅ ｓｐｅｎｄｉｎｇ ｍｏｎｅｙ ｔｏ ｈｅｌｐ ｔｈｅ ｅｃｏｎｏｍｙ." Ｃｏｎｓｕｍｅｒ ｂｏｒｒｏｗｉｎｇ ｄｏｕｂｌｅｄ ｂｅｔｗｅｅｎ 1981 ａｎｄ 1986, ｆｒｏｍ $394 Ｂｉｌｌｉｏｎ ｔｏ $739 Ｂｉｌｌｉｏｎ. Ｃｒｅｄｉｔ ｃａｒｄ ｕｓｅ ｇｒｅｗ ｆｒｏｍ $55 ｂｉｌｌｉｏｎ ｉｎ 1980 ｔｏｏ ｍｏｒｅ ｔｈａｎ $128 ｂｉｌｌｉｏｎ ｉｎ 1986 (Ｈａｒｒｉｓｏｎ & Ｂｌｕｅｓｔｏｎｅ 149).Ｆａｍｉｌｉｅｓ ｆｉｌｉｎｇ ｃｈａｐｔｅｒ 13 ｏｆ ｔｈｅ Ｂａｎｋｒｕｐｔｃｙ Ｃｏｄｅ ｇｒｅｗ ｆｒｏｍ ａｎ ａｖｅｒａｇｅ ｏｆ ｌｅｓｓ ｔｈａｎ 39,000 ｐｅｒ ｙｅａｒ (1975-1980) ｔｏ ａｌｍｏｓｔ 95,000 ａ ｙｅａｒ (1981-1984) (Ｈａｒｒｉｓｏｎ & Ｂｌｕｅｓｔｏｎｅ 152). Ｆｒｏｍ 1969 - 1980 (ｐｒｉｏｒ ｔｏ Ｒｅａｇａｎｏｍｉｃｓ) ｗａｇｅ ｃｕｔｓ ａｎｄ ｆｒｅｅｚｅｓ ｗｅｒｅ "ｐｒａｃｔｉｃａｌｌｙ ｎｏｎ-ｅｘｉｓｔｅｎｔ" (Ｈａｒｒｉｓｏｎ & Ｂｌｕｅｓｔｏｎｅ 39). Ａｆｔｅｒ 1980, ｔｈｅ ｐｕｒｃｈａｓｉｎｇ ｐｏｗｅｒ ｏｆ ｌｏｗｅｒ-ｃｌａｓｓ ｗａｇｅ ｅａｒｎｅｒｓ ｔｈｒｏｕｇｈ ｍｉｄｄｌｅ-ｃｌａｓｓ ｗａｇｅ ｅａｒｎｅｒｓ ｄｅｇｒａｄｅｄ ｔｈｒｏｕｇｈｏｕｔ ｔｈｅ ｐｅｒｉｏｄ. Ｗｈｏ ｐａｉｄ ｆｏｒ ｔｈｅ ｉｍｐｒｏｖｅｍｅｎｔｓ ｉｎ Ａｍｅｒｉｃａｎ ｂｕｓｉｎｅｓｓ ｄｕｒｉｎｇ ｔｈｅ 1980ｓ? Ｔｈｅ ｌｏｗｅｒ 60% ｏｆ Ａｍｅｒｉｃａｎ ｗｏｒｋｅｒｓ ｐａｉｄ ｆｏｒ ｔｈｅｓｅ ｉｍｐｒｏｖｅｍｅｎｔｓ ｔｈｒｏｕｇｈ ｔｈｅ ｒｅｄｕｃｔｉｏｎｓ ｉｎ ｔｈｅ ｒｅａｌ ｐｕｒｃｈａｓｉｎｇ ｐｏｗｅｒ ｏｆ ｔｈｅｉｒ ｉｎｃｏｍｅ. Ｔｈｉｓ ｐａｐｅｒ ｆｏｃｕｓｓｅｄ ｏｎ ｏｎｅ ｐａｒｔｉｃｕｌａｒ ｆａｃｅｔ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ Ｒｅａｇａｎｏｍｉｃｓ ｄｅｂａｔｅ; ｔｈｅ ｉｓｓｕｅ ｏｆ ｉｎｅｑｕａｌｉｔｙ ｉｎ ｉｎｃｏｍｅ ｄｉｓｔｒｉｂｕｔｉｏｎ ｉｎ Ａｍｅｒｉｃａ ａｓ ａ ｒｅｓｕｌｔ ｏｆ ａ ｔｕｒｎ-ａｒｏｕｎｄ ｉｎ ｇｏｖｅｒｎｍｅｎｔ ｐｏｌｉｃｉｅｓ ｃｏｍｂｉｎｅｄ ｗｉｔｈ ｃｏｒｐｏｒａｔｅ ｒｅｓｔｒｕｃｔｕｒｉｎｇ. Ｈａｒｒｉｓｏｎ ａｎｄ Ｂｌｕｅｓｔｏｎｅ ｃａｌｌ ｔｈｅ Ｒｅａｇａｎ Ａｄｍｉｎｉｓｔｒａｔｉｏｎ "ｔｈｅ ｓｉｎｇｌｅ ｇｒｅａｔｅｓｔ ｇｉｆｔ ｔｏ ｔｈｅ ｂｕｓｉｎｅｓｓ ｃｏｍｍｕｎｉｔｙ" (Ｈａｒｒｉｓｏｎ & Ｂｌｕｅｓｔｏｎｅ 102). Ｒｅａｇａｎｏｍｉｃ ｐｏｌｉｃｉｅｓ, ｔｈｏｕｇｈ ｗｅ ｃａｎ'ｔ ｆｏｒｇｅｔ ｓｏｍｅ ｉｎｉｔｉａｌ ｄｅｒｅｇｕｌａｔｉｏｎ ｅｆｆｏｒｔｓ ｉｎｓｔｉｔｕｔｅｄ ｄｕｒｉｎｇ ｔｈｅ Ｃａｒｔｅｒ ｙｅａｒｓ, ｒｅｖｅｒｓｅｄ ｗｈａｔ ｈａｄ ｂｅｅｎ ａｃｃｏｍｐｌｉｓｈｅｄ ｐｒｉｏｒ ｔｏ ｔｈｅ 1970ｓ (Ｈａｒｒｉｓｏｎ & Ｂｌｕｅｓｔｏｎｅ 79). Ｍａｎｙ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ ｎａｔｉｏｎ'ｓ ｅｃｏｎｏｍｉｃ ｃｒｉｔｉｃｓ ｓａｗ ｔｈｅ ｐｏｌｉｃｉｅｓ ｏｆ Ｒｅａｇａｎｏｍｉｃｓ ａｓ ｓｈｏｒｔ-ｔｅｒｍ ａｎｓｗｅｒｓ ｔｏ ａ ｌｏｎｇ-ｔｅｒｍ ｐｒｏｂｌｅｍ ｂｙ ｂｏｒｒｏｗｉｎｇ ａｇａｉｎｓｔ ｔｈｅ ｎａｔｉｏｎ'ｓ ｆｕｔｕｒｅ. ＷＯＲＫＳ ＣＩＴＥＤ ＧＥＯＧＨＥＧＡＮ, ＴＨＯＭＡＳ. Ｗｈｉｃｈ Ｓｉｄｅ Ａｒｅ Ｙｏｕ Ｏｎ? Ｔｒｙｉｎｇ Ｔｏ Ｂｅ Ｆｏｒ Ｌａｂｏｒ Ｗｈｅｎ Ｉｔ'ｓ Ｆｌａｔ ｏｎ Ｉｔｓ Ｂａｃｋ. Ｎｅｗ Ｙｏｒｋ: Ｆａｒｒａｒ, Ｓｔｒａｕｓ & Ｇｉｒｏｕｘ 1991 86-7, 124, 139 ＨＡＲＲＩＳＯＮ, ＢＥＮＮＥＴＴ & ＢＬＵＥＳＴＯＮＥ, ＢＡＲＲＹ. Ｔｈｅ Ｇｒｅａｔ Ｕ-Ｔｕｒｎ: Ｃｏｒｐｏｒａｔｅ Ｒｅｓｔｒｕｃｔｕｒｉｎｇ ａｎｄ ｔｈｅ Ｐｏｌａｒｉｚｉｎｇ ｏｆ Ａｍｅｒｉｃａ. Ｎｅｗ Ｙｏｒｋ: Ｂａｓｉｃ Ｂｏｏｋｓ, Ｉｎｃ., 1991 ｖｉｉｉ, 12, 14, 16, 25, 28, 31, 39, 79, 102, 113, 131, 147, 149, 152, 162 ＫＲＵＧＭＡＮ, ＰＡＵＬ. Ｐｅｄｄｌｉｎｇ Ｐｒｏｓｐｅｒｉｔｙ: Ｅｃｏｎｏｍｉｃ Ｓｅｎｓｅ ａｎｄ Ｎｏｎｓｅｎｓｅ ｉｎ ｔｈｅ Ａｇｅ ｏｆ Ｄｉｍｉｎｉｓｈｅｄ Ｅｘｐｅｃｔａｔｉｏｎｓ. Ｎｅｗ Ｙｏｒｋ: ＷＷ. Ｎｏｒｔｏｎ & Ｃｏｍｐａｎｙ 1994 24-5, 262 ＳＬＡＴＥＲ, ＣＯＵＲＴＥＮＡＹ Ｍ. Ｂｕｓｉｎｅｓｓ Ｓｔａｔｉｓｔｉｃｓ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ Ｕｎｉｔｅｄ Ｓｔａｔｅｓ 1997 Ｅｄｉｔｉｏｎ. Ｌａｎｈａｍ: Ｂｅｒｎａｎ Ｐｒｅｓｓ 1997 129, 143 |
Image of cost pool accounting
 |
| cost pool accounting |
cost pool accounting Image 1
 |
| cost pool accounting |
cost pool accounting Image 2
 |
| cost pool accounting |
cost pool accounting Image 3
 |
| cost pool accounting |
cost pool accounting Image 4
 |
| cost pool accounting |
cost pool accounting Image 5
Related blog with cost pool accounting
- the-gold-market.blogspot.com/...want without cutting into your returns. Because of the low costs, pool accounts are a good way to trade gold as the gold market price dips...
- metatime.blogspot.com/...close and personal. Netwalkers attempt to push fence into creek. Wild Horse Resort Pool Area Popular Items from the Internet Time KnowledgeBase Newsletter archive Internet Time...
- whattaboutbob.blogspot.com/...for an introductory price of only $99. That's right. All of this information literally cost less than a cup of regular coffee… once a week. I'm sorry, but if you don't think information...
- tightpantiz.blogspot.com/... to remove the pieces of hair/dust/paper/waramashit swimming in the pool of waste water. And this my friend, is a glimpse of how a TRUE CBB is like...
- akpensionreform.typepad.com/ak_pension_reform/... are more cost efficient than DC accounts due to higher investment... and longevity risk pooling. DC accounts lack supplemental...
- spectervision.blogspot.com/... recommendations for 1. increasing America ’s talent pool by vastly improving K-12 mathematics and science education, 2. developing...
- leearnoldsblog.blogspot.com/... ago-you should have 30% of your cume in a database. An e-mail database costs nothing to mail. You've just got to mail them good stuff. The other wonderful...
- tlevs.blogspot.com/... someone, now if they shut down this pool, then i'll be right out there with my sign... faculty respect and an honest accounting etc. etc. and is life and death in...
- thestateofwhiteamerica.blogspot.com/... of assassins known within the NOI as “death angels,” cost anywhere from 70 to “just under 270” (Clark Howard) whites their lives...
- ibloga.blogspot.com/... disability payments; now 8 million are on the rolls, at a cost to taxpayers of approximately $120 billion a year. The states today owe...
Cost Pool Accounting - Blog Homepage Results
...) Website You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change ) You are commenting using your Twitter...
optimalby
...of Ownership Income Statement Individual Retirement Account IRA Intestacy Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust Joint... Personal Holding Company Pooled Income Fund Pourover Provision Power of Appointment...
Related Video with cost pool accounting
cost pool accounting Video 1
cost pool accounting Video 2
cost pool accounting Video 3
0 개의 댓글:
댓글 쓰기