[deleted]
The labor share of income in the US is at its lowest post-war level
191–200 of 573 posts
Re: The labor share of income in the US is at its lowest post-war level
#192People 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 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.
My understanding is that "fixed" costs like rent and groceries have gone up and taken more of people's budgets, while wages failed to catch up with this inflation.
If that's the case, it's markedly different from "situation on the ground is unchanged". I don't know how the overall pie is doing, but it has not grown enough to compensate for the labor share drops shown in the article. The slice on my plate is certainly lighter.
Re: The labor share of income in the US is at its lowest post-war level
#193Earlier quoted context omitted.
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,…
> 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
So you're saying I'm in poverty because I couldn't buy my house and my car outright?
> and medical expenses in retirement
You're saying I'm in poverty because I understand and intend to use Medicare?
These are trivially poor definitions.
Re: The labor share of income in the US is at its lowest post-war level
#194Earlier 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.
"Abject poverty" is currently defined as living on less that $3 a day and dealing with things like chronic hunger and exposure. The best approximation would be the homeless population in the US (about 500k people), but even then most homeless would not even qualify. "Half" is a gross exaggeration.
The homeless number under estimates people with unstable housing that aren’t on the streets.
I assure you that when your basic housing and nutrition are uncertain and missing even a few days of income will result in cascading effects of hunger and homelessness, the underlying stress is overwhelming.
It doesn’t have to be this way, we don’t let bullies steal all the toys on the playground and destroy the very ecosystem that they want to have fun in, why are we letting capital accumulate in the hands of the most effective capitalists at the risk of destroying the very markets that let them succeed.
I say that as a capitalist, if we lose the system because we allow unchecked Monopoly and wealth concentration, we won’t get it back.
Re: The labor share of income in the US is at its lowest post-war level
#195By design, no?
Re: The labor share of income in the US is at its lowest post-war level
#196Earlier quoted context omitted.
>and half of the US is living in abject poverty Source? All the ones I know of use questionable methodology like: "being able to afford a 2 bedroom apartment at median wage".
> All the ones I know of use questionable methodology like: "being able to afford a 2 bedroom apartment at median wage". Well, that's (at minimum) what you need to raise a family and replace yourself in the labor pool.
That's a laudable goal, but hardly "abject poverty"
Re: The labor share of income in the US is at its lowest post-war level
#197Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
being born into money is not a requirement to own several houses before 30. Do tell.
So “landlord” and “commercial landlord living entirely off of passive income” are worlds apart.
Buying a fixer-upper outside of town with high-school and early 20s grinding, renting out 3+ rooms to cover the mortgage for painful years, working 80 hour weeks, refinancing against that first house into another under-maintained property where you live in half while upgrading the other, ending up with a rental duplex and drastically reduced living cost, is viable by 30. Maximizing youth savings, first house programs, and primary residence rules create less punitive economics.
It sucks and will let one learn why landlord is a pain in the ass job, and relies on sweat equity and modest lifestyle, wanting to commit to real estate, and non-ideal properties. Trade school or skipping college for early income and low debt make the numbers crunch easier.
Investing consistently into the market in your 20s probably out performs it by 65, and a young bankers lifestyle is a joy of its own, but: owning property young is achievable for electricians, security guards, and janitors.
Re: The labor share of income in the US is at its lowest post-war level
#198Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
I don’t think that makes the argument you think it does. Wealth concentration is even more extreme.
Re: The labor share of income in the US is at its lowest post-war level
#199Earlier quoted context omitted.
Capital gains tax is clearly lower than income tax. So why did you change your mind?
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…
> Incidentally, corporate taxes are why many small business owners pay themselves wage income, rather than doing stock buybacks or dividends.
You've been sold some BS. Usually this is because you're required to take a "reasonable" wage for your role in a company. Otherwise I guarantee you every independent contractor out there (among others) would be operating in a way that made 100% of their income business profit, rather than wages, as it has enormous tax advantages. Approximately everybody tries to find out the least they can take as wage income without pissing off the IRS, and sets their "wage" to whatever that is.
Re: The labor share of income in the US is at its lowest post-war level
#200Earlier quoted context omitted.
> half of the US is living in abject poverty while quality of life for everyone is decreasing. The 350 million Americans looking at the top of the US economy and crying need to turn around and take a look at what's behind them. There are something like 7 billion people behind them, worse off.
This isn't relevant to this discussion. You're welcome to go complain on a message board in Mumbai about wages in the US.
It absolutely is relevant to the discussion. Many Americans are ungrateful and envious of the Americans wealthier than them, in spite of the fact that their own living standards are still far far better than the majority of humans on the planet. And some of those hypocritically think that the wealth of richer Americans belong to them, but would never consider giving their own wealth to people across the globe who are poorer than them.