For what its worth Ross Perot had an ominous take on the effects of free trade back in the 90s with his "giant sucking sound" observation.
The labor share of income in the US is at its lowest post-war level
31–40 of 573 posts
Re: The labor share of income in the US is at its lowest post-war level
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s not. There are plenty of non-wealthy people who make money from things other than their labor. Small-time landlords are an example, as would be anyone who owns a small business and draws cash from profits rather than taking a salary.
> non-wealthy > landlord If you think these two things are compatible you need to talk to more people outside of your bubble.
[flagged]
Re: The labor share of income in the US is at its lowest post-war level
#33Yikes. Good to know that labor shares used to rebound after crises, but since the 2000s and the dotcom bubble it has basically been downhill only. So don't expect any of this to get better unless we roll back technology to the last millenium.
Technology isn't the problem. The problem is the generation in governing power through the last 2 decades has no problem burning down the country's future to maintain lavish retirement funds for themselves.
Re: The labor share of income in the US is at its lowest post-war level
#34this is relatively unremarkable for those with an understanding of wage, labor, profit, price and capital. capitalism will always seek to reduce labor cost. during the epoch of neoliberalism it achieved great strides in this by reducing labor power through union busting by both thatcher and reagan in the UK and US respectively. it has also effectively curtailed any increase in the minimum wage for nearly 20 years as…
Marx fails to imagine a world in which labor actually has little to no value.
His worldview is primarily that capitalists 'steal' the valuable labor. However it doesn't seem that that is actually the world we are in. Instead the intrinsic value of human labor seems to be slowly trending towards zero.
And it kind of makes sense, same has happened with oxen labor, horse labor, etc.
Re: The labor share of income in the US is at its lowest post-war level
#35The actual labor share of income is significantly higher when you include employer contributions to employee health insurance premiums. Healthcare costs have been rising faster than overall inflation for decades, and while many of those costs are passed on to employees the employers have also absorbed a significant chunk. If we want to increase the labor share then we'll drive down healthcare spending.
And no, there's no simple solution to this problem. The notion that something like "Medicare for All" would solve the problem is a total fantasy, disconnected from actual US healthcare economics. Any real solution will have to work on multiple angles including preventive care, PBMs, provider wages, rationing, drug prices, fraud, malpractice insurance, interoperability technology, etc.
Re: The labor share of income in the US is at its lowest post-war level
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
The annoying/sad/infuriating thing is the ultra wealthy don’t have “income.” Technically, according to IRS rules, much of what they experience (housing, food, etc) should be classified as income. But their lawyers and accountants help them keep that looking quite low.
I used to think this - but when I talked to a tax lawyer friend and we walked through the steps they take, usually they're just deferring taxation that does end up getting paid by an entity eventually.
Was your ‘friend’ Jeffery Epstein?
Re: The labor share of income in the US is at its lowest post-war level
#37Re: The labor share of income in the US is at its lowest post-war level
#38Could it be because the productivity is up?
Re: The labor share of income in the US is at its lowest post-war level
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
I used to think this - but when I talked to a tax lawyer friend and we walked through the steps they take, usually they're just deferring taxation that does end up getting paid by an entity eventually.
Capital gains tax is clearly lower than income tax. So why did you change your mind?
Not the commenter you replied to, but one thing to note is that capital gains tax (at least in the context of investments in corporate equities) is applied after corporate taxes. Profits and reinvested earnings are taxed as profits, and they're two of the key components to valuing an equity.
As such, when comparing income tax and capital gains, you should add the impact of corporate taxes. Incidentally, corporate taxes are why many small business owners pay themselves wage income, rather than doing stock buybacks or dividends.
Re: The labor share of income in the US is at its lowest post-war level
#40The actual labor share of income is significantly higher when you include employer contributions to employee health insurance premiums. Healthcare costs have been rising faster than overall inflation for decades, and while many of those costs are passed on to employees the employers have also absorbed a significant chunk. If we want to increase the labor share then we'll drive down healthcare spending. And no, there'…
Why wouldn't a single-payer solution work? The margin that the insurance companies take for themselves seems like a good place to start. From there it would spiral out to the third to half of time that all of the clinical staff spend just dealing with insurance issues and insurance billing.