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

101–110 of 573 posts

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

#101

Post by beckon69 »

tadfisher wrote: post #81
noahbp wrote: post #48

That most-recent spike during/post-COVID really puts into perspective just how unreasonable low-wage employers were to be so hysterical.

Highly suggest adding "hysterical" to your internal vocabulary filter.

Not OP. But respectfully disagree. Reads appropriate to me.

"Related to or marked by Hysteria" https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hysterical

Hysteria being "behavior exhibiting overwhelming or unmanageable fear or emotional excess" which seems to be exactly what OP was trying to say.

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

#102

Post by tonyedgecombe »

contagiousflow wrote: post #24
smt88 wrote: post #6

Earlier 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.

Most landlords are leveraged up to the hilt. They may look wealthy from the outside but a close look at the figures says otherwise.

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

#103

Post by ETH_start »

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'…

I strongly agree that socializing the healthcare industry will not help in any way. To the extent that healthcare costs have skyrocketed, it's precisely because of government intervention in the U.S. Healthcare industry has massively increased over the last 50 years, especially in the form of tax incentives for employers to compensate employees by way of health insurance. Anyway, with respect to the labor share of income, that is not correct. Employer contributions to employee health insurance premiums are included in the labor share.

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

#104

Post by FuriouslyAdrift »

jcfrei wrote: post #60

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.

The longer graph (starting at 1947) shows the shift in 2001 on more startlingly

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PRS85006173

Corporate profit vs Labor income divergence (only up to 2018)

https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2018/08/corporate-profits-ve...

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

#105

Post by ghastmaster »

The most interesting takeaway I see in the labor share percentage graph is the trend that labor share increases into the recession. Post recession share trends down for a bit.

How much of the trend is due to employment trends vs. printing money for the wealthy to get their hands on it first(and profit) post recession?

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

#106

Post by saghm »

aeternum wrote: post #34
nimbius wrote: post #14

this 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.

> And it kind of makes sense, same has happened with oxen labor, horse labor, etc.

Sounds like we should start imagining a world where we don't treat people like literal livestock, and then figure out how to get there fast

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

#107

Post by wqaatwt »

aeternum wrote: post #34
nimbius wrote: post #14

this 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.

Isn’t it the complete opposite? i.e. high automatization means that a single worker can create many times more value than before. However it reduces the demand for labor and worker bargaining power. So companies have no incentive to pair “fair” wages.

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

#108

Post by taeric »

dozerly wrote: post #90
legitster wrote: post #61

People are misreading the conclusion - the Covid related drop is normal and matches previous episodes, but the massive overall drop since 2000 is not. The situation on the ground is unchanged - the amount of labor being generated per person has not really changed, but the overall pie has grown massively around us.

We have one of the worlds most prosperous economies, and half of the US is living in abject poverty while quality of life for everyone is decreasing.

I'm going to go on a limb and say half of the US is not living in abject poverty? Nor can I get behind the idea that quality of life for folks is on the down trend.

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

#109

Post by micromacrofoot »

dozerly wrote: post #90
legitster wrote: post #61

People are misreading the conclusion - the Covid related drop is normal and matches previous episodes, but the massive overall drop since 2000 is not. The situation on the ground is unchanged - the amount of labor being generated per person has not really changed, but the overall pie has grown massively around us.

We have one of the worlds most prosperous economies, and half of the US is living in abject poverty while quality of life for everyone is decreasing.

the top 1% have nearly as much income as the bottom 80%

https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distr...

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

#110

Post by playorizaya »

mrtksn wrote: post #15

And yet for some reason all the algorithmic pricing targets the laborers, when apps hunt for whales they target teenagers. Ridiculous. There is a need for proper pricing for the rich, i.e. Elon can pay a million dollars per meal. Someone is leaving money on the table.

Love this.

Parking and speeding tickets should have income brackets, at least.

In the early Internet I saw this thing, no idea if it’s true but it sounds good (someone can math check it), goes something like:

A person pays $2 to play basketball on a public court.

Michael Jordan gets paid $2k to play on the same one.

A person pays $100 for basketball shoes.

Michael Jordan gets paid $100k to wear the same ones.

A person pays $40 to go see a basketball game.

Jordan gets paid $400k to attend the same game.

Michael Jordan makes about $5 per second.

If Michael Jordan saved all his money without spending a penny for 250 years…

He wouldn’t even have half as much as Bill Gates!

It made me think differently about money and consumer spending.

Post reply on HN