If we are truly converting engineers to cashiers, as you claim (and others have been claiming for years), then that substitution would show-up in real wage figures. That debate is far from settled, although protectionists accept "downward mobility" as an article of faith.
Furthermore, the solution for excessive governmental regulation is not more governmental regulation, just as it is counter-productive to argue "there's no such thing as free trade, so we must make it as unfree as possible."
Belief in efficient markets is not "selling-out," even though it comes with the understanding that the market will choose winners and losers. Finally, belief that the government can do better at choosing winners than the market can is downright dangerous, and the fundamental basis of many failed economic experiments.
you can't get any honest wage data, because for it to be reflective of what is really going on, wage earners about $200K per year would have to be eliminated from the statistics. when 10 executives offshore 1000 people, and those 10 get huge bonuses while 1000 go to work at home depot, the ultra high wages of those 10 would have to be eliminated from the figures to really see the truth.
Belief in efficient markets is not "selling-out," even though it comes with the understanding that the market will choose winners and losers. Finally, belief that the government can do better at choosing winners than the market can is downright dangerous, and the fundamental basis of many failed economic experiments.We don't have a free market. It is broken. What we do have doesn't work, or isn't working now. The market isn't choosing winners and losers. Morons in suits are. Why do you have so much faith in their ability to choose? Because they are rich? I've met plenty of stupid rich people. They are not all Hank Rearden, industrial Uberman. Many of them are dumber than the morons in government, if that's even possible.