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

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

#131

Post by Avicebron » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 4:27 PM UTC

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.

It's amazing how few people are willing to admit there is a problem. Spend 45 minutes driving around the state I live in talking to random people and it's painfuly obvious this is reality that some. I suppose it's mostly epstein sympathizers who are pushing the narrative that everything is perfect and nothing needs to be done.

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

#132

Post by guptadagger » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 4:27 PM UTC

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.

>the amount of labor being generated per person has not really changed

im not really understanding what you mean. i dont get how labor is generated, in particular. do you mean to say the amount of total hours dedicated to labor per person or something else?

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

#133

Post by scottyah » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 4:27 PM UTC

b40d-48b2-979e wrote: post #65

opinion-is-bad wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

being born into money is not a requirement to own several houses before 30. Do tell.

Live in a poor place. There are plenty of cheap houses, but you do have to leave expensive areas (shocking, I know).

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

#134

Post by dominotw » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 4:28 PM UTC

nradov wrote: post #72

dominotw wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

All healthcare systems have some form of rationing. Even if your doctor thinks something is medically necessary it can only get done if the system actually has capacity. In most countries where there is universal coverage with a single payer, certain expensive treatments have long waiting lists or are simply unavailable at any price. Thus we see wealthy Canadians coming to the USA as medical tourists and paying cash…

yea queue is fine . i was wondering about gp's claim that universal would be more efficient because there is no more back and forth about approving.

i wasnt sure if it simply takes a different form or gets eliminated completly.

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

#135

Post by GlickWick » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 4:28 PM UTC

beckon69 wrote: post #101

tadfisher wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The origin of the word is a bit darker than its meaning, unfortunately. It comes from the Greek word for Uterus. You can kinda fill in the blanks from there as to how it came to its modern meaning.

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

#136

Post by Fernicia » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 4:28 PM UTC

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.

[Citation needed]

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

#137

Post by ux266478 » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 4:28 PM UTC

delfinom wrote: post #33

sigmoid10 wrote: post #17

Yikes. 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.

I think it's more nuanced than that. There surely are plenty of cases where that is the case, but it's also a natural effect of hyperfinancialization, which many really do believe to be a "net positive" for the stability it brings. There's also the natural tendency of consolidation and centralization of power, and the natural counter-balance to that has been suppressed. Then you have legislative incompetence, the general failings of scientific governance aggregating over time, and many other structural flaws that are deeply seated and long-running.

We shouldn't just be pointing at the (very much real) stupid greed, there are many rotten components occurring simultaneously.

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

#138

Post by carlosjobim » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 4:28 PM UTC

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.

The original comment said "ultra wealthy".

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

#139

Post by vannevar » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 4:28 PM UTC

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.

This is consistent with the observation that the top 10% have captured a disproportionate share of GDP growth over the past few decades.

https://equitablegrowth.org/new-data-reveal-how-u-s-economic...

"The past three economic expansions have largely benefitted the top 10 percent. In each, the top decile received between 47 percent and 59 percent of all income growth in the expansion."

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

#140

Post by saghm » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 4:28 PM UTC

ETH_start wrote: post #103

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 in…

> 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.

It fails to follow logically that one specific way the government got involved that drove costs up means that any possible intervention is worse than completely being hands-off. How do you explain pretty much every other developed country in the world having more government involvement but lower costs than the US?