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

211–220 of 573 posts

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

#211

Post by roughly »

MintPaw wrote: post #147
saghm wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Data is also a really, really potent rhetorical tool, because it is definitionally never complete (a map that fully captures a territory is the territory), and by those omissions, the data can be made to say anything at all in a way that looks unbiased.

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

#212

Post by scottyah »

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

I'm not the only one with access to data though, if you're wanting to hold to your beliefs unless someone does the legwork for you and attempts to force it on you, I think your bias will overcome. Here is a source to begin anyway.

The middle class (especially upper middle) saw their share of income drop, but the bottom 50% increased.

https://equitablegrowth.org/u-s-income-data-for-2024-shows-t...

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

#213

Post by gruez »

jzb wrote: post #166
taeric wrote: post #108

Earlier 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.

I think “abject poverty” is probably overstating the case a bit. I do think quality of life is trending downward given the fact that housing, food, gas, medical care costs are all increasing while wages are stagnant or worse.

>I do think quality of life is trending downward given the fact that housing, food, gas, medical care costs are all increasing while wages are stagnant or worse.

???

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N

Note this is already inflation adjusted, so "housing, food, gas, medical care costs are all increasing" is already accounted for.

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

#214

Post by jmye »

win311fwg wrote: post #183
scottyah wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

While you are able to look up someone's definition of abject poverty, the only definition that is relevant in this context is the one held by the author of the earlier comment. It is unlikely you can look up his definition (before he replies to those who have asked for the definition in force).

> the only definition that is relevant in this context is the one held by the author of the earlier comment.

This is absolute nonsense. We use common language to refer to common things in understandable ways in order to communicate with each other. You don't get to just handwave baldly incorrect statements as "well maybe he just has a different personal definition" without basically rendering literally all conversation moot and pointless.

"Yeah, I know he said 2+2 is 5, but you don't know he defines 5" is just as patently silly.

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

#215

Post by pinko »

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'…

Do other countries' state healthcare system costs count towards their labor share of income? If not, it seems sensible not to account for them that way in the US, or you're creating a much more serious apples and oranges problem for international statistics (which are often cited/compared for these figures)...

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

#217

Post by atq2119 »

mc32 wrote: post #185
taeric wrote: post #108

Earlier 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.

Mississippi, the poorest state, has similar median income to Germany. I’m pretty sure 50% of the people there are not in abject poverty.

This doesn't actually seem to be true based on a quick googling, i.e. Germany has somewhat higher median income.

But in addition to the raw numbers, you have to keep in mind that they don't account for cost of living and that different countries account for various services differently, especially health care.

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

#218

Post by rsalus »

guptadagger wrote: post #132
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?

he's referring to labor productivity, e.g., the economic value produced per unit of labor input. it also _has_ changed significantly, as seen here: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/OPHNFB

however, unit labor costs has also been increasing (although they remain variable): https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2026/productivity-up-0-3-percen...

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

#219

Post by autoexec »

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…

> I strongly agree that socializing the healthcare industry will not help in any way.

It would eliminate the tens of billions that are wasted on insurance company profits.

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

#220

Post by scottyah »

logicchains wrote: post #200
Avicebron wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The people who want money from people richer than them never want to give up their own to the people who look to them with the same eyes.
Post reply on HN