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

141–150 of 573 posts

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

#141

Post by honeycrispy »

colechristensen wrote: post #97
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.

It's just rent. Rent for the homes we live in (including "rent" as mortgage payments to the bank) Rent passed through as costs to the consumer for the businesses we patronize. We're stuck at home more affording to be able to do less so the people who own don't have to work.

And it's wild to me how we can't seem to figure out how to bring the cost for this down. Building affordable houses should be our no. 1 priority.

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

#142

Post by gruez »

micromacrofoot wrote: post #109
dozerly wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

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

>link for "Distribution of Household Wealth in the U.S. since 1989"

income =/= wealth

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

#143

Post by win311fwg »

Fernicia wrote: post #136
dozerly wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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]

dozerly. "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." Hacker News, 30 Jun. 2026, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48734916

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

#144

Post by nradov »

wqaatwt wrote: post #85
arjie wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the insurance companies disappeared tomorrow, presumably all medical care is paid for at point of use by patients? That would mean stochastically facing catastrophic bills from providers. I am sympathetic to the idea that healthcare providers and systems here should be making no more than in, say, Europe, but an orthopaedic surgeon being paid the $300k USD-equivalent in Germany instead of his $750k USD income toda…

> would be very unhappy. Significantly increasing the supply of doctors would solve that, though.

There are certainly some things that we could do to increase the supply of physicians by reducing the cost of education, expanding access to combined BS/MD programs, and increasing the number of residency slots. But those measures will have marginal effects, and take years to show up in supply numbers. There just aren't a lot more people who are mentally and physically capable of doing this work.

Part of the problem is that we force physicians to waste too much time on administrative work. Some of this could be delegated to cheaper employees or not done at all, thus effectively increasing supply. Administrative overhead is also one of the factors driving physicians to quit and pivot to other careers or retire early, which further constrains supply.

This part is controversial but we'll also have to shift a lot of primary care to Physician Assistants and Nurse Practitioners. Care quality might be lower in some cases but for routine conditions it's probably better to see a PA/NP today instead of waiting weeks for a physician.

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

#145

Post by Ekaros »

imightbebatman wrote: post #117
colechristensen wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's just rent. Rent for the homes we live in (including "rent" as mortgage payments to the bank) Rent passed through as costs to the consumer for the businesses we patronize. We're stuck at home more affording to be able to do less so the people who own don't have to work.

I have a similar PoV. I think rent seeking without sufficient checks is one of the biggest problems in our economy. But the underlying problem that people aren't paid enough is still true. Outside a few fields, most people are underpaid. It's even more stark when measured against productivity increases during the same time periods. That wealth went somewhere. It wasn't to most people. People have a tendency to get up…

From outside it doesn't look like not being paid enough. It looks like affordability problem. Prices in general are too high.

Rents in general are part of this. Both for housing and commercial property. Somehow getting profit from both rent and appreciation is the goal of the system.

Well that is what population voted for and choose not to overthrow system for so maybe they deserve it.

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

#146

Post by nickff »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #79
nickff wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tax…

I've often wondered why we don't abolish corporation tax and instead tax capital gains and dividends like normal income.

This would be my personal preference, as I believe that voters often overlook the impact of corporate taxes, and there are just too many (different) taxes.

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

#147

Post by MintPaw »

saghm wrote: post #68
scottyah wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

How do you know that you're not the one hanging around the "wrong people" to know better? You could just as easily be surrounding yourself with wealthy people as they could be with non-wealthy. Without data, it just sounds like "my social circle is more indicative of reality than yours". Maybe it is! But maybe not, so it's not particularly convincing

Data is the answer, it's just that so few people are willing to look at unbiased data. Although the start is asking a more measurable question.

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

#149

Post by scottyah »

idiotsecant wrote: post #124
vdqtp3 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> half of the US is living in abject poverty Anyone who believes this has absolutely no concept of what abject poverty looks like.

This is quickly going to devolve into 'nobody suffers unless their suffering as at least as bad as the worst suffering that exists', so let's just go ahead and get that out of the way and move on to something less pointless.

Have you looked up the definition of abject poverty? It is "the most severe and hopeless form of human deprivation". It's the subject of the conversation, how is that pointless?

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

#150

Post by dheera »

taeric wrote: post #108
dozerly wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you have negative net worth and the bank's money, not yours, is buying your food and housing, you are in abject poverty, just that the system is propping up your survival for a while.

A lot of the US looks like they're doing great but fits into the category above.

Non-poverty would look like:

* You make enough money to pay for your own food, housing, and transportation in full, with enough buffer for emergencies, without needing to borrow a cent

* You make enough money to be on trajectory to save up to pay for your own food, housing, transportation, and medical expenses in retirement when you are physically unable to serve the workforce

Post reply on HN