Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The labor share of income in the US is at its lowest post-war level

libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 573 posts

Re: The labor share of income in the US is at its lowest post-war level

#41

Post by dlev_pika »

nradov wrote: post #35

The 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'…

Yeah, I guess the rest of the developed world doesn’t really ‘get it’ - fools!

Re: The labor share of income in the US is at its lowest post-war level

#42

Post by rglover »

ThrowawayIP wrote: post #16

Okay, so say AI & MBAs are successful in replacing the labor spend of corporations on every level? What happens to "the economy"?

It transitions back to a more feudalist state. The series finale to "you will own nothing and be happy."

That is, if they're successful.

Re: The labor share of income in the US is at its lowest post-war level

#43

Post by win311fwg »

ThrowawayIP wrote: post #16

Okay, so say AI & MBAs are successful in replacing the labor spend of corporations on every level? What happens to "the economy"?

Not much. Early economies relied on mutual trade. I give you X and in return you give me Y. Soon we realized that you cannot always give Y in return immediately, so we invented accounting to keep track of your promise to give me Y at some point in the future. As time went by eventually we stopped caring about getting Y back in return and started taking an interest in collecting the promises themselves (i.e. profit).

Why would someone want to collect promises? That seems rather silly, right? What having a lot of promises gives you is social standing. People treat you differently — better — when they give you their promises. If traditional labor goes away, the economy simply becomes you promising to hold those who have things in the highest regard; to be there as their friend when they call for you to. That is the same modern economy we already have but with less steps.

Re: The labor share of income in the US is at its lowest post-war level

#44

Post by b40d-48b2-979e »

dlev_pika wrote: post #41
nradov wrote: post #35

The 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'…

Yeah, I guess the rest of the developed world doesn’t really ‘get it’ - fools!

Could America be wrong? No, no, it's the other countries!

Re: The labor share of income in the US is at its lowest post-war level

#45

Post by Schiendelman »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #18
Schiendelman wrote: post #8

Earlier 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.

If they donate the wealth to their own foundation to continue to hold close and control, it doesn't get taxed. If they borrow against the wealth at low interest rates until they die and the basis is stepped up ("buy, borrow, die"), it doesn't get taxed. Certainly, deferment is a component, but there are obvious examples of the very wealthy operating in a manner to avoid taxes entirely when they're able to (realizing…

The cases you're talking about are all delaying taxation, not eliminating it. Eventually someone has to draw that wealth - the foundation has to spend for public benefit to be eligible for 501(c)3 status, for instance.

Re: The labor share of income in the US is at its lowest post-war level

#46

Post by legitster »

nradov wrote: post #35

The 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'…

The data here would already include healthcare contributions.

Re: The labor share of income in the US is at its lowest post-war level

#47

Post by ToucanLoucan »

nradov wrote: post #35

The 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'…

> If we want to increase the labor share then we'll drive down healthcare spending.

It may not be simple but it's clear the United States is doing something catastrophically wrong. All the other healthcare systems on the planet in developed countries have problems, sure. But we spend magnitudes more money to receive middling-to-shit healthcare. Medical debt and bankruptcy is a unique American problem that also happens to be the most reliable way for otherwise productive and prosperous members of our society to end up fucking homeless. Because they got SICK. I rarely use the word "evil" but that really fits IMO.

Like you cannot tell me with a straight face that the insurance industry couldn't be blown the fuck off the map tomorrow and literally everyone who doesn't own an insurance company isn't instantly better off.

Re: The labor share of income in the US is at its lowest post-war level

#49

Post by toomuchtodo »

Schiendelman wrote: post #45
toomuchtodo wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they donate the wealth to their own foundation to continue to hold close and control, it doesn't get taxed. If they borrow against the wealth at low interest rates until they die and the basis is stepped up ("buy, borrow, die"), it doesn't get taxed. Certainly, deferment is a component, but there are obvious examples of the very wealthy operating in a manner to avoid taxes entirely when they're able to (realizing…

The cases you're talking about are all delaying taxation, not eliminating it. Eventually someone has to draw that wealth - the foundation has to spend for public benefit to be eligible for 501(c)3 status, for instance.

How Elon Musk's secretive foundation hands out his billions - https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jan/23/how-elon-... - January 23rd, 2019

"Spending for the public benefit" has a lot of latitude.

Re: The labor share of income in the US is at its lowest post-war level

#50

Post by loughnane »

jameslk wrote: post #13

The submitted title is a bit sensationalist given the article’s conclusion: > Is this decline a distinct change from the recent behavior of the labor share in the U.S.? Along the two key dimensions we investigate, our answer is no. First, the labor share’s trajectory post-COVID broadly follows the cyclical patterns observed in earlier recessions, with a decline during the recovery phase that mirrors historical dynami…

I don't think so. Opening sentence is this:

> The labor share of income in the U.S. is currently at its lowest-ever level in the post-war period.

Agreed on the 2000 drop though. Would be interesting to read a retrospective on that.

Post reply on HN