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

251–260 of 573 posts

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

#251

Post by IncreasePosts »

mschuster91 wrote: post #184
gruez wrote: 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 the 1950s Americans were doing a good job at replacing themselves in the labor pool, and household size was larger and houses were smaller.

Why is it impossible for Americans to live with 300 sq ft per person like baby boomers did as kids, but now we must live with 600+ sq ft per person?

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

#252

Post by scottyah »

izacus wrote: post #229
FloorEgg wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

None of those gives voting shares to employees.

Even if true, why would that matter? This is about distribution of wealth, not additional responsibilities.

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

#253

Post by downrightmike »

clusterhacks wrote: post #21

FTA's conclusion: "Is this decline a distinct change from the recent behavior of the labor share in the U.S.? Along the two key dimensions we investigate, our answer is no. ... and they provide little evidence that it will evolve differently from past episodes." This conclusion seems to be against "this time is different" arguments. Should we be generally encouraged by similarity to past declines pre-2000 or bearish…

Bearish, they are already working as hard as they can to replace everyone with AI or at least Actual Indians playing AI

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

#254

Post by dheera »

jmye wrote: post #193
dheera wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Medicare is a different thing, the government should be providing medical care for everyone to begin with, regardless of what they make.

My definition is if you need to borrow money to put a roof over your head, at the minimum renting, you're in poverty. There are huge chunks of the US population borrowing money to pay for rent.

If your locality doesn't provide adequate public transit, then a car is a necessity, and the onus is now on the locality's economy to make sure everyone can access that; if your locality doesn't pay high enough to afford that car without borrowing money, then yes, you're in poverty. Alternatively, the locality can choose to provide adequate, safe public transit, and the bar of poverty would change.

Most of the US doesn't think this way because they're delusional and have been conditioned to feed the financial system and pay for things with money they don't have.

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

#255

Post by Schiendelman »

saghm wrote: post #93
toomuchtodo wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How Elon Musk's secretive foundation hands out his billions - https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jan/23/how-elon-... - January 23rd, 2019 "Spending for the public benefit" has a lot of latitude.

I also don't think they addressed how borrowing against the wealth doesn't require any immediate taxes (and is often low interest, given how being a billionare means you get more favorable terms). There's nothing stopping someone in that position from just deferring taxes on the money they currently have, borrowing against it, and then investing that to turn into more money with taxes deferred even further so that th…

That requires their investments to keep going up in value. That doesn't last forever, the assets that people borrow against eventually need to be sold to pay back that loan. When they sell to make payments, those are taxable events.

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

#256

Post by colechristensen »

honeycrispy wrote: post #141
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.

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.

Just tax corporate owned vacancy. In a slump there will be apartment buildings that are mostly empty because they refuse to lower the rent as lowering rent triggers property re-valuation.

Office buildings sit mostly empty for the same reason.

Tax the owners to punish the bad bets and eternal growth expectations of banks to force them to use the space to the benefit of the community or be forced to sell when they run out of money. Use zoning laws to prevent the destruction of units to avoid taxes.

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

#257

Post by shimman »

gegtik wrote: post #170
shimman wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is but you have to ignore the lived reality that Americans are struggling to afford healthcare, housing, utilities, education, and food costs all while the ultra wealthy are demanding the public invests trillions into vaporware.

maybe the disconnect here is the claim was about 'income' which in isolation of living conditions, perhaps continues to rise and thus by the most narrow and useless definition, the OP is incorrect

Things barely increasing after nearly 40+ years of being completely flat isn't the win that poster thinks it is, maybe if you're doped up on neoliberalism it sounds nice but everything else people need to survive are also increasing in costs massively.

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

#258

Post by PaulHoule »

digitaltrees wrote: post #163
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 own a Medicaid home care agency in 13 states. We serve low income families and our caregivers, who earn $12-18hr which is higher than minimum wage, absolutely struggle. We have created food banks and housing assistance because even working people are a few sick days or one car repair away from homelessness. I would encourage you to go work with average Americans in average towns. The facts on the ground are stark a…

Someone could interpret that as a lack of capitalism rather than the opposite.

That is, Henry Ford changed the world because he deployed capital to make workers so productive that they could afford to buy the cars they make.

A person paid to do child care in an organization with overhead, who has to pay taxes, etc. is not productive enough to put their own children in child care. So child care fails to revolutionize the world the way the car did.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol_effect

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

#259

Post by carlosjobim »

rglover wrote: post #42
ThrowawayIP wrote: post #16

Okay, so say AI & MBAs are successful in replacing the labor spend of corporations on every level? What happens to "the economy"?

It transitions back to a more feudalist state. The series finale to "you will own nothing and be happy." That is, if they're successful .

That has already happened. The entire industrialized world is feudal. Young workers who are experts in their fields working full time can't afford a simple home. Young business owners who employ several people full time can't afford a simple home.

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

#260

Post by bigstrat2003 »

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.

You don't have to be especially wealthy to own a second house and rent it out. That isn't poor, certainly, but I wouldn't call it wealthy either.
Post reply on HN