In this case "the government" refers to the upper management of Ford, or at least that's how I read your parents post.

To reword:

> But since this time, the shareholder value has taken over the government.

But since that time, Ford management only cares about maximizing shareholder value.

> If you wanted the infamous "five dollars a day," you had to let management make sure you were living decently at home, including the wife staying at home if she had a husband.

This is something I'd happily put up with if I could find this mythical job that pays well enough to support a family on a single income.

The median income for an individual with a Bachelor's Degree was around $49,000 per year (2003 census data). That's enough to support a family -- maybe not in your favorite high-cost-of-living city, and maybe not with a lot of expensive hobbies, but it's perfectly doable.

> Ford was incredibly nosy into workers' lives.

Not sure about Ford, but it's the same thing with Tomas Bata, famous Czech shoemaking enterpreneur and contemporary of Ford. He is also still lauded as a progressive by some, and he was for his era (he built homes for his workers, paid them well, etc.); however, judging from the today's moral standards, we would consider him very elitist and also nosy. For instance, he put part of employee's savings into his own bank.

I interpreted that as corporate governance, not US government.

Maybe "Zeitgeist" would be a reasonable fit?