Higher Wages Won’t Crash the Economy
The American economy already produces enough value to pay working people substantially more. A more balanced division of corporate income would reduce some profit margins, executive awards and shareholder distributions, but it would not require eliminating profits or capital returns. It would move the economy closer to the arrangement that prevailed before the shareholder-first model became dominant.
America can raise worker pay by trimming outsized profit margins, executive compensation and shareholder extraction—without abolishing profits, investment, 401(k)s or economic growth.
TL;DR
American workers can receive substantially higher wages without eliminating profits, destroying 401(k)s, or crashing the economy. From 1979 to 2025, net productivity increased 90.2%, while typical-worker compensation increased only 33%. Meanwhile, the estimated large-company CEO-to-worker pay ratio rose from 24.5-to-1 in 1974 to 280.7-to-1 in 2024.
In 2024, U.S. nonfinancial corporations produced approximately $14.85 trillion in gross value added and paid employees approximately $8.45 trillion in total compensation. Had employee compensation remained at its 1974 share of corporate value added, workers would collectively have received about $1.26 trillion more—an increase of nearly 15% in the employee-compensation pool. Even in a deliberately severe static calculation in which all of that money came directly from after-tax profits, corporations would still have retained about $845 billion in profits.
That does not mean every employer could absorb an immediate, identical wage increase without making adjustments. Some companies would accept lower margins, reduce executive compensation or shareholder payouts, improve productivity, raise some prices, or need a longer transition. But the numbers contradict the claim that fairer wages necessarily mean economic collapse. A gradual program of stronger collective bargaining, higher wage floors, productivity sharing, executive-pay restraint, and targeted help for genuinely vulnerable small businesses could raise working-class incomes while preserving profitable companies, productive investment, retirement accounts, and returns to capital.
For more than four decades, working Americans have been warned that the economy is a fragile altar. Ask shareholders to accept somewhat lower returns, ask executives to accept fewer millions, or ask corporations to share more productivity gains with employees, and supposedly the whole system will collapse.
Businesses will close. Jobs will disappear. Prices will explode. Retirement accounts will be destroyed. Investment will stop.
That warning has functioned less like a serious economic forecast than a political veto. It allows virtually any increase in compensation at the top while treating every proposed raise for ordinary workers as an existential threat.
The evidence points in a different direction.
The American economy already produces enough value to pay working people substantially more. A more balanced division of corporate income would reduce some profit margins, executive awards and shareholder distributions, but it would not require eliminating profits or capital returns. It would move the economy closer to the arrangement that prevailed before the shareholder-first model became dominant.
The shareholder-first experiment was a policy choice
The economic turn associated with Ronald Reagan was not hidden. It was publicly advocated and deliberately implemented.
The Heritage Foundation’s own history says Reagan gave its original Mandate for Leadership to every Cabinet member and that his administration adopted or attempted nearly two-thirds of its approximately 2,000 recommendations. Heritage described the document as a plan to reverse decades of New Deal-era policy, with lower taxes and reduced regulation among its central priorities.
That does not mean Reagan or Heritage single-handedly caused every economic change that followed. Automation, globalization, foreign competition, deindustrialization and technological change all affected American employment.
But those forces do not determine by themselves how the resulting income is divided. Public policy determines whether workers can organize, whether employers face meaningful consequences for retaliation, how low the wage floor can fall, how corporations are taxed, and whether executives are rewarded for raising share prices or building a stable workforce.
America increasingly chose to treat labor as a cost to be suppressed and capital as a constituency to be rewarded.
Workers did not stop producing
Before the great divergence, worker compensation and productivity generally moved together.
From 1947 through 1973, labor productivity increased by an average of 2.8% per year, while inflation-adjusted hourly compensation rose by 2.6% per year. Workers became more productive, businesses became more valuable, and employee compensation generally followed.
That relationship broke down after the 1970s.
The Economic Policy Institute estimates that net productivity rose 90.2% between 1979 and 2025, while typical-worker compensation increased only 33%. Under its methodology, the typical worker would receive approximately $16.40 more an hour in total compensation, including about $13.53 more in wages, had compensation continued to track productivity.
The missing compensation is not sitting in a single corporate vault. Some went to higher profits and shareholder wealth. Some went to executives and other highly compensated employees. Some reflects changes in taxes, benefits, depreciation and the composition of the economy.
But the broad result is difficult to dispute: American workers continued producing more value, while their power to claim that value weakened.
Executive compensation tells the other side of the story
In 1974, the estimated compensation ratio between a large-company CEO and a typical worker was approximately 24.5-to-1.
By 2024, it was approximately 281-to-1.
EPI estimates that the average realized compensation of CEOs at the 350 largest American companies reached $22.98 million in 2024. Average annual wages and benefits were approximately $74,000 for private-sector production and nonsupervisory workers overall and $84,000 for comparable workers in the industries represented by those large companies.
From 1978 through 2024, inflation-adjusted CEO compensation rose 1,094%. Typical-worker compensation rose only 26%.
No plausible theory of executive talent explains why CEOs became more than 10 times as valuable relative to their employees while productivity increased by a fraction of that amount.
The escalation was driven heavily by stock-based compensation. In 2024, vested stock awards and exercised options represented approximately 79% of realized CEO compensation in EPI’s sample. That gives executives an enormous personal incentive to prioritize the share price, often through buybacks, cost cutting and short-term margin improvement.
A CEO can be extremely well paid without receiving $23 million a year. Reducing average large-company CEO compensation to approximately $3 million would not turn CEOs into members of the working poor. It would still mean roughly $250,000 a month.
Union decline weakened the worker’s side of the table
Workers once had institutions capable of negotiating over productivity gains.
The comparable national union membership rate fell from 20.1% in 1983 to 10% in 2025. In the private sector, only 5.9% of workers were union members in 2025.
The Treasury Department’s review of economic research concluded that unions generally raise members’ wages by approximately 10% to 15%, while also improving retirement coverage, health benefits, workplace procedures and other conditions.
That premium does not arise because union members become 15% more deserving as human beings. It arises because individual workers negotiating alone against a corporation generally have little leverage. Workers negotiating collectively can claim more of the value they create.
Congress recognized this problem when it enacted the National Labor Relations Act. The law explicitly states that unequal bargaining power can depress wages and workers’ purchasing power, aggravating economic downturns. It describes collective bargaining as a way to restore a degree of equality between employers and employees.
Yet the enforcement structure remains weak. The National Labor Relations Board says it cannot assess penalties for violations of the labor law. It can generally seek measures such as backpay, reinstatement and a notice promising future compliance.
That creates a straightforward incentive problem. When defeating a union could save a corporation millions of dollars in future labor costs, being ordered years later to provide backpay may be treated as a manageable business expense rather than a meaningful deterrent.
The economy already produces the money
The most important rebuttal to the collapse narrative can be found in the national corporate accounts.
In 2024, American nonfinancial corporations generated approximately $14.85 trillion in gross value added. This is not total sales; it is the value corporations produced after accounting for goods and services purchased from other businesses.
Employees received approximately $8.45 trillion in wages, benefits and other compensation. That was about 56.9% of corporate gross value added.
In 1974, nonfinancial corporations generated approximately $830 billion in gross value added and paid approximately $543 billion in employee compensation. Compensation therefore represented approximately 65.4% of gross value added.
Apply that 1974 proportion to what corporations actually produced in 2024, and the result looks like this:
| Nonfinancial corporate sector | Actual 2024 | At 1974 compensation share |
|---|---|---|
| Gross value added | $14.85 trillion | $14.85 trillion |
| Employee compensation | $8.45 trillion | $9.71 trillion |
| Additional employee compensation | — | $1.26 trillion |
| Increase in the compensation pool | — | 14.9% |
This does not require inventing $1.26 trillion in new revenue. The value was already produced.
It changes who receives it.
Profits would fall—but they would not disappear
Nonfinancial corporations recorded approximately $2.11 trillion in after-tax profits in 2024.
In the most aggressive simple accounting exercise, suppose the entire $1.26 trillion increase in employee compensation came directly out of after-tax profits. Corporations would still have approximately:$2.11 trillion−$1.26 trillion=$845 billion
in after-tax profits.
That is not economic collapse. It is a lower profit margin.
The real adjustment would be more complicated. Some companies would accept lower profits. Some would reduce dividends or buybacks. Some would reduce executive compensation. Some would raise prices modestly. Some would improve productivity, reduce turnover or reorganize operations. Some low-margin businesses would need longer transitions or targeted assistance.
But the aggregate numbers reveal a vast middle ground between today’s distribution and the abolition of profit.
The argument is not that every corporation can absorb every wage increase immediately. It is that the corporate economy as a whole has substantial room to pay employees more while continuing to earn hundreds of billions of dollars in profit.
What a 1974-style pay relationship could look like
EPI’s 2024 benchmark places annual wages and benefits for a typical full-time worker in the industries represented by the largest companies at approximately $84,000.
Applying the broad productivity catch-up implied by EPI’s 1978–2024 figures raises that benchmark to approximately $120,000 in total compensation. Applying the 1974 CEO-worker multiple of 24.5-to-1 would produce CEO compensation of roughly $3 million.
| Compensation measure | Actual 2024 | Illustrative balanced model |
|---|---|---|
| Typical large-company-industry worker | $84,000 | about $120,000 |
| Average top-350 CEO | $22.98 million | about $3 million |
| CEO-worker ratio | 281-to-1 | about 24.5-to-1 |
This is an illustration, not a literal prediction for every company. EPI’s early ratios are reconstructed historical estimates, and its worker figures measure wages and employer-provided benefits—not simply take-home salary.
It also requires two forms of redistribution.
First, more income must move from capital owners to employees overall.
Second, more of the employee compensation pool must move away from CEOs, senior executives and other extremely highly paid employees and toward ordinary workers.
Restoring only the aggregate 1974 corporate compensation share would increase the total compensation pool by about 15%. Typical workers could receive more than 15% only when the additional money is concentrated below the executive and highest-paid professional levels.
That distinction strengthens the case. It prevents a broad labor-share increase from becoming another raise for executives who are technically counted as employees.
“Higher wages will force companies to close”
Some companies operate on thin margins. A restaurant, local retailer or small manufacturer cannot necessarily absorb the same wage increase as a dominant technology company, pharmaceutical corporation, financial institution or national retailer.
That is an argument for intelligent policy design—not permanent wage stagnation.
A responsible wage transition would be phased in over several years. A 14.9% cumulative increase implemented over five years would amount to approximately 2.8% in additional compensation growth per year, above whatever baseline growth occurred.
The policy could also distinguish between:
- Large, highly profitable corporations
- Small independently owned businesses
- Labor-intensive industries with thin margins
- Companies facing genuine international competition
- Dominant firms with pricing power
- Federal contractors receiving substantial public revenue
Smaller employers could receive temporary wage-transition tax credits, affordable financing for productivity improvements, and relief from costs such as health insurance that large corporations can spread across enormous workforces.
The inability of some businesses to absorb an immediate increase does not prove that no workers anywhere can be paid more.
“Higher wages will cause runaway inflation”
Some wage increases will be reflected in prices. Pretending otherwise would weaken the argument.
But a dollar of additional compensation does not automatically create a dollar of additional consumer prices. Corporations have several adjustment channels: profits, executive compensation, shareholder distributions, productivity, turnover, staffing, supplier contracts and prices.
The inflationary risk also depends on how quickly wages rise, whether productivity is increasing, whether industries have unused capacity and whether firms are already earning unusually large margins.
A one-time national wage shock is different from a gradual system in which employee compensation regularly shares in productivity growth.
Had pay continued rising alongside productivity over the past 50 years, the economy would not suddenly need to find trillions of dollars today. The higher wage structure would already be embedded in prices, corporate valuations, business plans and household spending.
The danger was created partly by allowing the imbalance to accumulate for decades.
“Higher wages will destroy jobs”
A serious case for higher wages should acknowledge that poorly designed increases can reduce employment in some places.
The Congressional Budget Office concludes that raising the federal minimum wage would increase earnings and family income for most affected low-wage workers and generally reduce poverty. It also estimates that some workers could lose employment. CBO notes that research findings vary widely: many studies find little or no employment effect, while others find substantial reductions. It also recognizes that higher wages can improve worker productivity, including by reducing employee turnover.
That is a tradeoff worth managing, not evidence of economywide collapse.
The answer is to combine higher wage standards with:
- Gradual implementation
- Strong labor demand
- Small-business transition assistance
- Training and productivity investment
- Sector-specific bargaining
- Enforcement against misclassification and wage theft
- Policies that prevent dominant companies from forcing costs onto small suppliers
A policy that raises wages for millions while causing limited disruption in particular industries should be adjusted where necessary. It should not be discarded merely because its costs are not literally zero.
No economic arrangement has zero costs. The present system imposes costs through low pay, inadequate retirement savings, financial insecurity and extreme wealth concentration. Those costs are simply less visible on corporate income statements.
“But workers own stocks through their 401(k)s”
Many workers do receive part of the shareholder return through index funds and retirement plans. That matters.
It does not mean weak wages are compensated for by strong stock returns.
In 2022, 54.3% of American families held an IRA or account-based retirement plan such as a 401(k) or 403(b). Among families with such accounts, the median balance was approximately $86,900, while the mean was approximately $334,000. That large difference shows how heavily retirement assets are concentrated among families with larger portfolios.
The same pattern appears in direct stock ownership. The median direct stockholding among owners was approximately $15,000, while the mean was around $404,000.
A worker with $50,000 invested and a wealthy household with $50 million invested may earn the same percentage return. But a 10% gain means:
- $5,000 for the worker
- $5 million for the wealthy household
Equal percentage returns do not create equal economic benefits.
Higher pay also affects retirement from the contribution side. Consider a worker with a $100,000 account:
- One additional percentage point of annual return produces $1,000.
- An additional $20,000 in annual compensation, with 10% contributed, produces $2,000 in new savings before any employer match.
- That larger contribution then compounds in every future year.
We cannot know the exact index-fund return in an economy that maintained the 1974 balance between labor and capital. Lower profit margins could mean lower stock valuations and possibly lower long-term returns.
But lower capital returns would not mean zero capital returns. And a worker with a substantially larger paycheck might accumulate more retirement wealth even with a somewhat lower return per invested dollar.
A 401(k) should supplement fair wages. It should not be used to justify suppressing the wages from which 401(k) contributions must be made.
“Lower profits will eliminate investment and innovation”
Investment requires an expected return. It does not require the highest profit share corporations can politically obtain.
Even after the full static $1.26 trillion shift described above, nonfinancial corporations would retain roughly $845 billion in after-tax profits. That is before considering the possibility that part of the adjustment would come from executive compensation, reduced shareholder distributions, productivity improvements or modest price changes.
The United States also experienced strong productivity and compensation growth during the postwar period when workers captured a larger portion of economic gains. From 1947 through 1973, productivity and real hourly compensation both grew rapidly and remained closely connected.
That era was not economically perfect. It included discrimination, exclusion, recessions and serious inequalities. But it demonstrates that relatively strong wage growth, union power, business investment and economic expansion can coexist.
Capital deserves a return for financing productive enterprise and accepting risk.
It does not follow that capital must receive every possible dollar left after workers have been paid as little as bargaining conditions permit.
“This is class warfare”
Every economic system distributes power and income.
A law that protects collective bargaining affects distribution. So does a law that weakens it.
A higher minimum wage affects distribution. So does leaving the federal minimum at $7.25 an hour since July 2009, where it remains today.
A tax on stock buybacks affects distribution. So does allowing unlimited buybacks.
A rule limiting executive compensation affects distribution. So does a corporate-governance system that rewards executives with tens of millions of dollars in stock-based pay.
The current arrangement is not neutral. It is the result of laws, tax rules, enforcement decisions, corporate practices and bargaining institutions.
The class war accusation is usually deployed only when working people attempt to reclaim bargaining power—not when executives and owners use their existing power to claim a larger share.
A fair-pay program for working America
The goal should not be to set every wage in Washington. It should be to rebuild the institutions through which workers can negotiate their own share.
Restore collective bargaining
Workers should be able to organize without risking an illegal firing that takes years to remedy.
Labor-law reform should include meaningful financial penalties for retaliation, rapid reinstatement procedures, equal access for organizers, timely elections, first-contract mediation and enforceable deadlines against bad-faith delay.
Workers in fragmented industries should also be permitted to bargain across companies. Sectoral standards would prevent responsible employers from being undercut by competitors whose business model depends on poverty wages.
Raise and index the wage floor
The federal minimum wage should be increased gradually and then indexed so that Congress cannot allow inflation to erase it again.
A durable formula could connect it to the national median wage, regional median wages or productivity. States and cities would remain free to establish higher standards when local wages and living costs require them.
The purpose of a wage floor is not to replace bargaining. It is to establish a minimum below which competition should not be allowed to push human labor.
Create a productivity dividend
Large companies should be required to disclose what portion of annual productivity and profit growth reaches nonexecutive employees.
When a company reports rising productivity, growing profit, large executive stock awards or major shareholder distributions, a specified portion of those gains should first support employee wages, benefits, profit sharing or retirement contributions.
A company should not be able to claim it lacks money for raises while simultaneously announcing record profits, multimillion-dollar executive awards and enormous shareholder payouts.
Put guardrails on extreme executive pay
Corporate tax and federal contracting rules could discourage extreme CEO-to-worker pay ratios.
A company would remain free to pay an executive whatever its board approved, but ratios above a defined threshold could trigger higher taxes, reduced deductions or lower priority for government contracts.
The historical comparison shows that a ratio near 25-to-1 can still leave executives extraordinarily well compensated. The choice is not between a $23 million CEO and no qualified CEO at all.
Protect genuinely vulnerable small businesses
A fair-pay transition should not treat a family-owned shop like a multinational corporation.
Temporary tax credits could offset part of the cost of documented wage increases at smaller firms. Public lending could finance equipment and training that raise productivity. Healthcare reform could reduce the burden of employer-provided insurance. Stronger antitrust enforcement could prevent dominant corporations and platforms from squeezing small suppliers while demanding that those suppliers absorb every wage increase.
Workers should not have to subsidize an unviable business model with permanently inadequate pay. But public policy can help viable small businesses make a gradual transition.
Make retirement wealth broad, not merely available
Automatic enrollment, portable retirement accounts, meaningful employer contributions and low-fee index options should be widely available.
Employee ownership and broad-based profit sharing could give workers a direct claim on the businesses they help build.
But retirement policy must begin with the paycheck. A worker cannot save money that never reaches the worker in the first place.
Fair pay is not an economic emergency
A balanced wage policy would create changes.
Some corporate profit margins would be lower. Some stock valuations could be lower. Some shareholder distributions would decline. Some executives would receive fewer millions. Some prices would rise modestly. Some businesses would need assistance or longer transitions. A limited number of poorly positioned companies might fail.
That is not the same as an economic crash.
Businesses would still earn profits. Investors would still receive returns. Executives would still be wealthy. Index funds would still own productive companies. Entrepreneurs would still have incentives to build businesses.
The difference is that the people doing the work would receive more of the value they create.
For decades, America has tested the proposition that maximizing the power and wealth of owners will eventually produce security for everyone else. The results include a widening productivity-pay gap, collapsing private-sector union representation, CEO compensation approaching 300 times worker compensation, and a corporate income distribution increasingly tilted away from ordinary employees.
We do not have to eliminate capitalism to correct that imbalance.
We have to balance it.
The economy does not crash when a CEO receives $3 million instead of $23 million. It does not collapse when a profitable corporation accepts a smaller margin. It does not stop functioning when shareholders receive a good return rather than the maximum return that weakened labor institutions make possible.
The central economic question is no longer whether America can afford higher wages.
It is why working people should continue accepting less when their productivity has already produced more.
What CEO-worker pay ratio and productivity-sharing rule would you consider fair? Add your view, and share this article with someone who has been told that paying people fairly is economically impossible.
Source list
Productivity and worker compensation
Economic Policy Institute, “Wage Calculator: How Much Should I Be Making?”
Provides the estimate that net productivity rose 90.2% from 1979 to 2025, while typical-worker compensation rose 33%. It also estimates that compensation would be approximately $16.40 per hour higher, including $13.53 more in wages, had typical pay kept pace with productivity. EPI identifies its underlying sources as BLS productivity and wage data.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “The Compensation-Productivity Gap.”
Documents that productivity and inflation-adjusted hourly compensation moved much more closely together during the postwar period. From 1947 through 1973, productivity grew an average of 2.8% annually, while real hourly compensation grew 2.6% annually.
CEO compensation
Economic Policy Institute, “CEO Pay Has Skyrocketed Since 1978.”
Provides the estimated CEO-to-worker compensation ratios, including 24.51-to-1 in 1974 and 280.72-to-1 in 2024. It also reports that realized CEO compensation rose approximately 1,094% from 1978 through 2024, compared with 26% growth in typical-worker compensation. EPI’s “typical worker” is a full-time production or nonsupervisory worker in the industries in which the 350 largest companies operate.
Corporate output, compensation, and profits
These three series are produced by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis and published through the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis’s FRED database.
BEA/FRED, Gross Value Added of Nonfinancial Corporate Business, series A455RC1A027NBEA.
Reports nonfinancial-corporate gross value added of $830.040 billion in 1974 and $14.849 trillion in 2024.
BEA/FRED, Compensation of Employees in Nonfinancial Corporate Business, series A460RC1A027NBEA.
Reports employee compensation of $542.933 billion in 1974 and $8.451 trillion in 2024. Compensation includes wages, salaries, and employer-paid supplements such as benefit contributions.
BEA/FRED, After-Tax Profits of Nonfinancial Corporate Business, series W328RC1A027NBEA.
Reports after-tax corporate profits, with inventory-valuation and capital-consumption adjustments, of $44.564 billion in 1974 and $2.107 trillion in 2024.
How the $1.26 trillion estimate was calculated
The $1.26 trillion figure is an article calculation based on the BEA data, not a figure independently published by BEA or FRED.1974 compensation share=$830.040B$542.933B=65.41% 2024 compensation at that share=$14.849T×65.41%=$9.713T Additional compensation=$9.713T−$8.451T=$1.262 trillion
That would expand the aggregate employee-compensation pool by approximately:$8.451T$1.262T=14.9%
The deliberately simple profit comparison is:$2.107T in after-tax profits−$1.262T in additional compensation=$845 billion remaining
This is a static accounting illustration, not a forecast that assumes businesses, consumers, prices, employment, and investment would remain unchanged.
Union membership and the union wage effect
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Union Members—2025.”
Reports that the national union membership rate was 10% in 2025, while the private-sector rate was 5.9%. The comparable overall union membership rate was 20.1% in 1983.
U.S. Department of the Treasury, “Labor Unions and the Middle Class.”
Reviews the economic literature and concludes that unions generally raise members’ wages by approximately 10% to 15%. It also discusses improved retirement benefits, health coverage, grievance procedures, scheduling, and positive wage spillovers for some nonunion workers.
Labor law and bargaining power
National Labor Relations Board, National Labor Relations Act.
The law’s opening findings explicitly recognize the “inequality of bargaining power” between individually employed workers and employers organized through corporations. It also connects depressed wages and purchasing power with recurring economic downturns.
National Labor Relations Board, “Investigate Charges.”
Explains that the NLRB generally cannot assess civil penalties under its governing statute. Its remedies ordinarily include backpay, reinstatement, and notices requiring employers to cease unlawful conduct.
Retirement accounts and unequal stock ownership
Federal Reserve Board, “Changes in U.S. Family Finances from 2019 to 2022.”
The Survey of Consumer Finances found that 54.3% of families held retirement accounts in 2022. Among account holders, the median balance was $86,900, while the mean was $334,000, illustrating how unevenly retirement assets are distributed. For direct stock holdings, the median among owners was $15,000, compared with a mean of roughly $404,000.
The same report found that, among families owning stock directly or indirectly, the median holding was about $12,600 for the bottom half of the income distribution, $53,200 for the next 40%, and $608,000 for the top 10%. These figures help explain why higher stock returns do not compensate every worker equally for weaker wage growth.
Minimum-wage effects
Congressional Budget Office, “How Increasing the Federal Minimum Wage Could Affect Employment and Family Income.”
CBO concludes that a higher federal minimum wage would raise earnings and family income for most affected low-wage workers and reduce poverty, while also estimating that some workers could lose employment. This supports a balanced argument: higher wage floors can produce substantial benefits, but their pace and design matter.
U.S. Department of Labor, Minimum Wage History.
Documents that the federal minimum wage reached $7.25 an hour on July 24, 2009, and has remained at that level since then.
Reagan and the Heritage Foundation
The Heritage Foundation, “Reagan and Heritage: A Unique Partnership.”
Heritage states that President Reagan distributed its original Mandate for Leadership to Cabinet members and that his administration adopted or attempted nearly two-thirds of its approximately 2,000 recommendations. This source supports the article’s statement about Heritage’s influence on the Reagan administration; it does not, by itself, establish that every later economic outcome was caused by Heritage.
Discover more from Interactive News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
