From demand to Supply - the squeeze on labour

One of the most significant changes that has occurred over the 20th century is the shift from an economy based on demand to that based on supply. Keynesian economics is predicated on the idea of stimulating demand to stimulate the economy for the benefit of society. This had the side-effect, I would contend, in that this few puts the health of the labourer, the consumer, as a primary concern for this is fundamental away to increase prosperity. By that, I mean if the function of government and the economy was to ensure that labour has both the money to buy goods and the leisure time to enjoy them; that this will create an increasing demand over the long term and thus prosperity for all, consumer and producer alike. Of course, anything that tries to affect society on the whole is not a quick endeavour but in the long run, far more stable. It is a slow and stead progress to prosperity. But during the latter half of the 20th century, the focus shifted from demand to supply and consumerism was born.
Consumer economics differs from the previous in the philosophy that “if you build/make it, people will come/buy it”. That it is the creation of supply that leads to prosperity by stimulating demand. This shifts the focus away from the labourer and onto the producer or corporation, who create the supply. This means that the function of government and the economy is to ensure business has an environment that will maximize the production of goods. This makes sense for the corporation, because it is a much simpler endeavour to maximize profit in the short term by reducing expenses (labour, regulations,…) and increasing externality (healthcare, environment). Because of the relentless drive towards profit corporations, the belief in the limitlessness of demand (supply is seen as the limiting factor in this model), the effectiveness of commercial propaganda and the predatory nature of capitalism, economies are forced into a spiral that places short-term over long-term, the endless drive to produce more today that yesterday in-spite of demand. This goes a long way to explain how profits have continually been increasing and yet standard of living and other indicators have remained at best stagnant or have slid backwards, at least for developed countries. I would like to think that the losses made in developed countries have been gained by the undeveloped countries, but I do not believe this equation balances or that it would be sustainable if it were the case.
One might argue that in the past national corporations could not allow consumerism to run rampant, because to do so would in essence "soil the nest." But with the breakdown of the Brenton Woods system, technological innovations, and the ever-growing trans-national corporation, it has meant that it is possible to use up one place (recourse depletion, or until local politics makes the climate unprofitable); then transfer your capital, the essence of the corporation, to another location elsewhere on the globe where you can start the process over again. Because capital essentially knows no border, corporations are free to go where they want. As a side benefit, labours, being caged by borders, become forced to compete with other caged nations to the detriment of all but the corporation then “race to the bottom” effect. Unlike in the past, it is also much easier for translational to escape any "local" or national political backlash but capital transfers. Again, not being bound by borders, unlike the labour it does prey upon Corporations have the ability to move out of harms way.

There is some hope for labour, though, can be seen in the EU with its relative free movement of labour anywhere within the union. One of the ways that labour can compete, although only partially effective due to social reasons, is to create borders as porous to labour as they are to capital. Efforts in this regard are seen in the EU but not in the Americas, if only this model could be extended as effectively as the World Trade Organization, the world monetary fund and the World Bank has made it for capital, a more level playing field and thus greater real prosperity might be enjoyed by all. It is ironic that those who wish to use entities such as WTO, miss one important fact (present in current trade agreements now) that even when labour provisions are created, they are seldom enforces. Enforcement is usually left to this same entity which is akin to getting the fox to agree to a Chickens rights bill, then having the Fox enforce it…
I think the idea of a translational labour union becomes more viable as technology shrinks the world. I suspect in a millennia from now, assuming we do not blow ourselves up or poison ourselves, that the Internet and its progeny will be seen as important as Gutenberg and the printing press. A hundred years ago, people working in Southeast Asia would've seemed as alien to us as those living on Mars. But today, although our cultures may differ and on the surface are customs may vary, underneath we see that all societies are far more all like and dislike; that our needs…wants…desires are far more similar than we have been led to believe in the past. That if we can overcome the provincialism of petty politics; the derisiveness of religion and the corrosion of greed, that there is a hope that we can unite as a people for common purpose and the benefit of all.