Live data from Hacker News

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

libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org

221–230 of 573 posts

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

#221
post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the question I should be asking, and what data answers it? I'm genuinely asking

Median household income is the stat usually used to measure income and it's still increasing.

If my income goes up by 1% and my expenses go up by 2%, has my financial situation improved?

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

#222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except for all the companies that issue shares and options as part of employee compensation.

this is mostly in tech. starbucks barista is not going to get any stocks

The barista can buy $SBUX every payday. The inverse of sell on vest.

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

#223
post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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?

Probably to referring to hours worked, eg. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/AWHAETP

no, he's almost certainly referring to labor productivity. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/OPHNFB

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

#224
post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 conversati…

> We use common language to refer to common things in understandable ways in order to communicate with each other.

Common doesn't mean ever-present. In practice, it is impossible for everyone to converge on a shared understanding for all terms. There are provably many people in the world who have never even heard the term "abject poverty" before. They cannot possibly understand what the term means to you. Fundamentally, "abject poverty" can only mean in that comment what the author believes it means. That may overlap with your understanding, but it also may not. We can also prove that he is not a mind reader and thus cannot tune it to your understanding. He is limited to his understanding and his understanding alone.

A good faith actor who believes there may be a discrepancy in understanding will seek clarification. That is what a discussion forum is all about. If one does not want to participate in discussion, why be here?

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

#225

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.

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

not true, labor productivity has been steadily increasing: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/OPHNFB

workers are simply capturing less of the economic value generated by their labor.

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

#226
post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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"

[deleted]

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

#227
post #111

Earlier 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.

In addition to that being obviously different from the line to “abject poverty”, it’s not at all obvious that a single median income should be able to support a 4-person family in a 2BR apartment or else the system is completely broken…

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

#228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Source for this statistically?

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

Bottom 50% is increasing income with the top 10%, it's the middle class that's declining in the last 5 years. This was a quick google search, so I'll ask you to provide a source that's contrary else your comment was purely rhetorical and made in bad faith.

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

#229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US has historically been quite opposed to the workers becoming shareholders.

Except for all the companies that issue shares and options as part of employee compensation.

None of those gives voting shares to employees.

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

#230
post #215
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)...

[flagged]
Post reply on HN