Did US labor's post‐World War II successes lead to its subsequent woes?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Whereas a combination of unique historical conditions and a specific set of public policies in the United States enabled labor to significantly increase its relative power during the quarter century following World War II, this halcyon period for labor was followed by a period of over two decades during which labor's relative status and power declined. This paper explores this reversal of fortunes. Design/methodology/approach Although the current plight of labor has been extensively studied within the discipline of economics, these studies have typically focused upon specific aspects of labor's declining status. In this study, labor's plight is examined within the larger context of the institutions and dynamics of capitalism as a socio‐economic system. Within this broadened context, an exploration is made of whether the sustained period of progress for American labor set in motion the creation of forces that eventually led to reversal. Findings Labor's relative successes in the quarter century following World War II encouraged behavior that enabled the interests of capital to politically legitimate policies that, combined with trends in international trade and technology, served to decrease the relative power and welfare of labor. Research limitations/implications Further research is needed to determine whether there are other instances of a dynamic whereby labor's successes set in motion forces that lead to reversal. Originality/value This study emphasizes the importance of a broaden institutional focus for grasping important economic changes in society.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".