I dunno about income, but wartime is surely conducive for creating social safety nets - which are better than individual wage raises. Skocpol makes that argument quite convincingly in her _Protecting soldiers and mothers : the political origins of social policy in the United States_. The "new deal" was instituted when the threat of communism was the strongest, and also during WWII. Johnson's "great society" (social keyenesianism European style) was initiated during Vietnam War.
By contrast, the end of the "cold war" spelled demise of social programs and unleashed unfettered laissez faire.
There is a good reason for that. Nothing threatens more the security of a ruling class than threats comimg from other nations. There is no such a thing as a revolutuion from below - all successful revolutions were precipitated by subtantial weakeing of the rulling class and the state by outside attacks (cf. Russia or China) or alternatively - support of the insurgents coming from other states. Thus, if the threat of another state supporting domestic dissent or insurgency vanes - the complacency of the ruling class grows and that makes them more inclined to privatize their profits and socialize the losses even more. The outcome is unmitogated laissez faire. That cmplacency bursts asunder when the external threat re-appears, as we see it now, which prompts the ruling class to make concessions. What is more, it the working class that disproportionally carries the burden of fighting a war - social protection may be an expensive payoff (wage increases cum shortages of labor might trigget an inflation).
wojtek