I have no doubt that you are I was in no way looking down on the role of organized labor and pro-labor movements into getting the majority decent living standard. On the other hand, labor was already well-organized, so what changed ? I'd say the ability to harness ever more so energy to a point where it was abundant. All of our standard of living is downstream of cheap energy. It feeds the machine and the machines work for us. Now we have a stake in the system because we rely on it much much more.

> After 70’s you look at purchasing power and living standards stagnating and both political and economical power becoming more and more concentrated on small elite

Is it the case though ? Probably it was more concentrated than in the decades before but I have a hard time to believe that it's more concentrated now than when we had political posters denouncing the "200 families" that ran the country. Anyways I am against the concentration of wealth and I am even against the existence of billionaires (I believe individual wealth should be capped so that it doesn't become political power) but I think your view of those articles is uncharitable. It is a binary worldview where people are either for labor or mouthpieces for capital and I just don't believe you get anywhere interesting with that approach, imputing motives has little value compared to actually try to respond to the arguments being made

> just a thin veil for business as usual rentier capitalism, that only benefits a very small elite

Trying to figure out how to best organize cities and develop them in the best interest of the public while trying to cap the negative externalities of development is a worthwhile endeavor