Wikipedia (citing the US Dept of Labor as the source) says the minimum wage buying power peaked in 1968, when the minimum of $1.60 was equivalent to $11.76 in 2019.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage_in_the_United_States
Lets add, that this was done, because globalization also reduced the cost of goods and services, so people could be convinced, that they were still participating in growth and experiencing prosperity. Issue, that doesnt hold true for all sectors (housing, ..), and it only works, when global trade is uninterrupted and active.
And the issue still remains, that the average american wasnt getting their share of productivity growth.
So when the first bigger crisis hit, interest rates were slashed, and most of the Service economy now worked to keep consumption up. Which doesnt bode well for the later parts of their lives - if 'nothing changes'.
So as people come to realize what happened, you need avenues of structural growth, that are open to them, or they will revolt.
Trump (rest his simple minded soul) tried to convince everyone - that tax cuts would fix the issue and bring in more entrepreneurial spirit -- aaaand they did nothing. Partly because he mostly cut taxes of the rich, and when he reduced corporate taxes, they took the money and started share buyback programs and stock investing - which did nothing for people.
Reason? There was no clear path in what to invest within the US that seemed viable and logical - long term. Other countries were growing faster, producing most of your goods cheaper, and you had ready made plans, on how to bring them closer to your level - using the tech that already existed.
By "closing your borders" that problem doesnt go away. By 'ruining/slowing down' internatinonal trade flows - it gets somewhat mitigated (supply chains become smaller), but the issue here is, that the international trading system is so interconnected by now - that its hard to hurt the other side you might want to draw up tarrifs against, but not yourself in the process - in the reaction that follows, and unforseen consequences.
In addition, if companies are forced to restructure their supply chains, they will do so looking at other ways to cut cost - so automation, digitization, ...
So the answer in some way or form has to be to 'create the next new thing' and make it something only the US / developed world can do - and make it something that most of your people can benefit from.
The obvious answer to that one is 'infrastructure investments', as it can be low skilled, but enables better synergies for the high skilled work (everyone has internet, roads that work, ...). And invest in education at the same time.
Issue - that costs all the moneys. So the state has to do it, and do it through stuctural investments. (Kicking the puck on who pays for it further down the road.)
But you need it to foster the climate, where the Investor class starts to invest in the US again - otherwise, their growth potential elsewhere in the world is always bigger. But if you create the next big thing... That can then be scaled all over the world and...
But for that to actually work (become operational), you ideally need a growth market. And the US has them in Mexico and now in a more active trading relationship with india.
Now this means, that in the long term - they will take the easier to produce parts of the supplychain again - and you will be forced to innovate to stay ahead. But the growth potential is there, the investment climate is there, US population isnt declining as fast as others, which is a positive...
Last point - so while the state is paying for the infrastructure projects (lower skill level), the question remains, how fast production of your new industries will be moved to lets say Mexico and India, and the answer here is - fast, because - there it has bigger growth potential (can produced cheaper, so more people can buy it - which increases your profit) - so at some point, we have to talk about redistribution.
You need to talk about redistribution from another angle as well - and that is, that more complex jobs, actually profit from people that have to worry less about their environments and future - so thinking about universal health care actually might be more economic for the US, because "grafting" gets you less far, than thinking.
And if you dont reign in the companies, that literally havent payed for productivity increases inside the US for 30 years - they will simply repeat it, and eff you over again..
To be fair to them, productivity increases in the US also - somewhat became less of a part of human work dividend, and more and more were produced by machines, or in foreign contreys - where investing simply promised higher returns.
So that you need to tackle as well.
The Biden administration does all that btw. - and pretty much all economists right now tell them, that its the right thing to do.
--
How you do it in countries that arent as well off as the US (Demographics, country to develop at your borders, low energy costs, ...) is the more difficult question to answer.
@
Psionic Roshambo:
