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

51–60 of 573 posts

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

#51

Post by ajross »

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'…

Is there a reference you can cite with corrected numbers? Honestly this sounds like excuse-making, especially when used as a jumping point into a decidedly partisan take (complete with scare quotes!) on the essentially unrelated subject of public health care financing.

The idea seems to have merit, but it's unconvincing to people outside your bubble and I'm dubious.

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

#52

Post by sofixa »

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'…

Removing a useless middleman party that needs a profit margin, and removing the perverse incentives of them having to prove their value thus having inflated prices with fake discounts, and centralising all healthcare purchasing power in a single entity, is absolutely going to solve a lot of challenges US healthcare faces

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

#53

Post by shimman »

contagiousflow wrote: post #37
scottyah wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Source for this statistically?

There is but you have to ignore the lived reality that Americans are struggling to afford healthcare, housing, utilities, education, and food costs all while the ultra wealthy are demanding the public invests trillions into vaporware.

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

#54

Post by dominotw »

throwway120385 wrote: post #40
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'…

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.

insurance issues are provider and insurer going back and forth detrmining if doctors assessment of necessity is agreed upon.

i am not familiar with universal system. In that system if your doctor thinks something is medically necessary then thats the end of it and its gets done?

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

#55

Post by nradov »

throwway120385 wrote: post #40
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'…

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.

I'm not necessarily opposed to a single-payer system but the margin that for-profit insurance companies take is a tiny fraction of overall healthcare spending. You could zero it out and it would barely move the needle. And many of the largest commercial health plans such as most Blue Cross Blue Shield Association members are non-profit. There is literally no margin.

Provider organizations spend a huge amount of effort dealing with Medicare and Medicaid, which are pretty close to being a "single-payer solution" already in many cases. From an administrative overhead perspective they aren't always easier to work with than commercial health plans. Plus they have enormous problems with fraud, waste, and abuse.

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

#56

Post by dominotw »

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!

they get subsidized by usa pharma industry. Their costs will rise if pharma prices are negotiated by govt here too.

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

#58

Post by imightbebatman »

balozi wrote: post #31

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 root of this started in the 70s as the New Deal coalition decayed and Keynesian economic theory fell out of favor among the elites.

To be fair their were good reasons at the time to think it wasn't working either.

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

#59

Post by ambicapter »

nradov wrote: post #55
throwway120385 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not necessarily opposed to a single-payer system but the margin that for-profit insurance companies take is a tiny fraction of overall healthcare spending. You could zero it out and it would barely move the needle. And many of the largest commercial health plans such as most Blue Cross Blue Shield Association members are non-profit. There is literally no margin. Provider organizations spend a huge amount of effor…

The mandated low margin is part of the problem. When your margins are regulated, the only way to increase profits is to just make everything more expensive. More revenue, same margin, more profits. Humane health care is incompatible with free market economics.

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

#60

Post by jcfrei »

I think this is part of a long term development where technology and globalization slowly erode workers bargaining power. Basically you only build a factory in the US if you can keep labour costs low enough and the manufacturing automated enough so that you can still compete with other manufacturing hubs.
Post reply on HN