In my opinion, the Democrat Party should be redefined as the party of the Not Working Man since nearly everything it does or supports is destined to increase their number.
The Democrats seem to have forgotten the basic concept that in order to have employment you have to have employers! And successful employers make money! Employers that don't are not employers for very long! If Democrats were truly the party of the WORKING Man, they would want to increase the number of successful businesses so that the demand for employees (i.e., the Working Man) would increase as well. If that were the case, the law of supply and demand would take over and, breathe deeply Democrats, wages of the Working Man would actually rise! [The ironic thing is that by increasing the number of businesses competing for the Working Man, the proportional profits of employers would also decline. The great income inequality that Democrats bemoan so much can be laid at the steps of their own policies!]
If you wanted to reduce the number of Working Men, you would do things like raise taxes, make businesses pay for increased benefits, pile on regulations. All of those things make it less profitable for a businessperson who might actually have wanted to hire them, reducing demand for employees and driving down wages. Oh yeah, isn't that the Democrat Party's economic platform??!!
Who are the Democrats biggest supporters, without whom no Democrat would ever be elected? Unions, the most anti-employer, anti-Working Man group ever conceived. "Wait", you say, "you are crazy, Unions are the defender of the Working Man." Nothing could be further from the truth. Unions are the defenders of no one but their own self-interest. By demanding usurious wages and benefits, Unions single-handedly drove nearly all of American manufacturing off-shore, destroying millions of jobs that used to be filled by the Working Man. Now they are bankrupting our cities and states.
The few unionized manufacturers who remain are mere shadows of their former greatness, a greatness that for the likes of General Motors and United States Steel was forged in the shadow of World War II when demand for their products exploded and supply was constrained due to the fact that their competition in Germany and Japan had been destroyed in the War. When those countries rebuilt and their heavy industrial capacity was brought back on line, they thrashed America's unionized manufacturers for one simple reason--their companies were not saddled with the same onerous labor costs as in the United States so they could actually invest in technology and innovation.
The math is very simple: union wages at double the norm could employ twice as many if halved. Twice as many employees would mean more production which would mean more competition which would lower prices for consumers. Lower prices for consumers would mean more consumption. More competition also means more innovation to manage scarce resources (n.b., in my opinion John D. Rockefeller probably did more for the environment than any environmental group ever has or will. By innovating, Mr. Rockefeller's company eliminated nearly all waste from the oil refining process, waste which had previously been dumped in Lake Erie and is now sold as by-products. He didn't do this because he was a nice guy. He wasn't. He did it because it made him money. He also employed a LOT of Working Men.).
Now reverse the process and you'll understand the true impact of unions: higher wages for the fewer employed, less production, less competition, higher prices, less consumption and less innovation. And this is the group that the Democrats have allied themselves most closely with!
So while the Democrats advertise themselves as the party of the Working Man, nothing could be further from the truth. Party of the Not Working Man is how I see it.