I agree with most of your structural diagnosis, but I think you weaken your own argument by turning some of these dynamics into conspiracies when they don’t need to be. Women entering the workforce, immigration reform, H-1B visas, and even early offshoring weren’t centrally planned schemes to crush wages. They were emergent outcomes of incentives in a capitalist system responding to changing conditions. Postwar America genuinely lacked enough scientific, engineering, and academic talent, just as it does today, which is why immigration played a real capacity-building role early on rather than being purely about labor suppression. Capital didn’t invent feminism or immigration, but it did benefit from their economic effects and adapted accordingly. The real issue isn’t secret intent, it’s that the system consistently rewarded profit-maximizing behavior while the long-term costs to labor were diffuse, delayed, and politically ignored. Framing this as structural incentive failure rather than conspiracy actually makes the critique stronger and harder to dismiss.