There are lots of reasons low-wage workers are at a disadvantage in our political and economic system, but central banks are not one of them.
There are lots of reasons low-wage workers are at a disadvantage in our political and economic system, but central banks are not one of them.
Employment is maximized within the limitations of excessive inflation and vice versa. It is well established that a scarcity of workers has a direct, measurable effect on inflation. Therefore, one could conclude that it would be impossible for the Fedral Reserve to allow for a significant scarcity of workers, which is required for low wage workers to have meaningful leverage in negotiations, as it would voilate the mandate to maintain stable prices(inflation) as set forth in the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 [2]
To elaborate on this a bit. This it not so much a direct action of the Federal Reserve to create a scarcity of workers, as much as it is a result of a scarcity of workers causing inflation. That inflation would force the Fed to raise interest rates. Those rate hikes would slow the economy and would result in there no longer being a scarcity of workers.
The balance of the Federal Reserves two manadates, maximum employment and stable prices, results in about 4.25% unemployment(a slight scarcity) and 2% inflation(stable enough prices).[3] That is our current comporomise between stable prices and maximum employment.
[1] https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/money_12848.htm
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Act
[3] https://www.chicagofed.org/research/dual-mandate/dual-mandat...
Ergo, the Federal Reserve is economically coercing people to work who might otherwise not need to, or who might prefer to work less. "Maximizing employment". This would be fine with sane labor protections (a reasonable living minimum wage, minimum PTO/vacation/sick days, maternity/paternity leave, etc), but is disastrous without them. This is what happens when you maximize for employment and GDP versus quality of life.