Live data from Hacker News

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

libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org

291–300 of 573 posts

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

#291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not American here. I know a couple of people who took out a second mortgage to buy a small appartement to rent out when mortgages rates were at 1%. They probably have €300k in equity in both the primary and secondary home. And around €600 in income from the rental. I do not consider that wealthy.

I would describe that as having invested in an appreciating asset (like stocks), and their main income comes from the gains of the property prices as they go up in value. Moreover, they leveraged themselves via loans to acquire income even faster. These gains might be realized at any point if they're willing to pay taxes for them. Having lots of money but choosing not to spend it doesn't make you any less wealthy.

[deleted]

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

#292
post #14

this is relatively unremarkable for those with an understanding of wage, labor, profit, price and capital. capitalism will always seek to reduce labor cost. during the epoch of neoliberalism it achieved great strides in this by reducing labor power through union busting by both thatcher and reagan in the UK and US respectively. it has also effectively curtailed any increase in the minimum wage for nearly 20 years as…

The problem is we are one step beyond capitalist exploitation as described by Marx - basically the surplus which fatcat industrialists extract from the laborer does not really exist - you have to compete in the market with others who do the same, and offer things at the lowest possible margins, and if you need to be big enough to get capital in, you have investors who demand their profits.

So basically you are squeezed between the public demanding lower prices and the investors demanding record returns. If you are not a monopoly, that is an impossible ask

Basically the only truly profitable businesses left out there is selling hopes and dreams to investors, and shovels to those who build them, which just about describes tech & AI, with companies who regularly manage to 10x their valuations (and P/E ratios)

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

#293
post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

The point is that his original claim is either incorrect, or is not supported by the source he cited.

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

#294
post #181
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not necessarily opposed to a single-payer system but the margin that for-profit insurance companies take is a tiny fraction of overall healthcare spending. You could zero it out and it would barely move the needle. And many of the largest commercial health plans such as most Blue Cross Blue Shield Association members are non-profit. There is literally no margin. Provider organizations spend a huge amount of effor…

For what it's worth I know you've worked on FHIR and probably know a lot of details I don't. Actually I'd be interested in talking to you about FHIR. That said! 1) In the big picture isn't the US clearly paying more than other countries? I'm sure some of this is eg a janitor in the US costs more than a janitor elsewhere, but still... 2) Isn't the cap for the margin that insurance companies can take 20%? That is, they…

I've worked on a lot of healthcare interoperability standards, including HL7 FHIR. Those can be part of the solution in terms of making the system operate more efficiently and cutting administrative overhead. In many cases payer and provider organizations are still doing things manually that could be automated using existing standards. But they fail to do so due to lack of vision and insufficient technical resources. Literally everything that can be done with a fax can be done faster and better with X12 / NCPCP / DirectTrust standards that have been around for years and are widely supported by commercial EHRs.

It's true that no matter how you look at it, the USA spends a lot more per capita on healthcare relative to outcomes. But you have to be careful what outcome metric you look at. Like we're not doing great on life expectancy, but much of that is due to factors largely outside the healthcare system like violence, vehicle crashes, and lifestyle choices. And in other areas like 5-year cancer survival rates or new drug development we're at or near the top. Part of the problem in the USA is that we seem to be culturally incapable of admitting that rationing is needed, and that it simply isn't feasible to deliver excellent care to everyone, so political reform debates devolve into sound bites about "death panels".

The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) set a minimum health plan medical loss ratio of 80%, or actually 85% for larger plans. And in practice most come in higher than that due to competitive pressures.

https://www.cms.gov/marketplace/private-health-insurance/med...

There's a huge amount of administrative overhead in dealing with health plans for things like claims and prior authorization. Much of that is imposed not so much by insurers themselves but by employers who want to hold down costs. Like a commercial insurer would be happy to sell a plan that would pay every claim immediately at 100% with no questions asked. It would be less work for them. But no one would buy it because costs would explode. Medicare and Medicaid plans also have prior authorization and peer review processes. Something like a quarter of all healthcare services are "low value care" which doesn't align with evidence-based clinical practice guidelines and may even harm the patient, so when health plans apply review processes the right way then ideally it's better for patients and holds down costs for everyone.

To be clear, I'm not here to defend commercial health insurance companies. They are part of the problem and some reforms in that area are sorely needed. But let's have an honest debate about it and stop pretending that eliminating them would solve the deeper systemic problems.

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

#295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> A person paid to do child care in an organization with overhead, who has to pay taxes, etc. is not productive enough

They are highly productive but the market doesn't value them. It values the backup forward on a basketball team - an almost completely non-productive job - more than a doctor. It values the owner of a company at $1 trillion, which is obviously absurd.

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

#297

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.

Indeed. It's a game of monopoly where one person owns all the property, and everyone else is just rolling the dice and, paying rent every turn.

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

#298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you belong to the 'non-laboring class' you are by definition the ultra wealthy. It's wild how much people are willing to slide goalposts to make themselves feel better.

It hurts the definition of the words when you use ultra wealthy to refer to the top 50%...

You think 50% of people don't labor?

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

#299
post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it humane to leave a patient to die in an ambulance when a single-payer nationalized healthcare system is over capacity? https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/apr/06/englands-nhs... I'm not trying to be snarky here, the point is that there is no easy solution and optimizing based on what politicians subjectively consider "humane" isn't going to get us anywhere. If we want to actually fix the problem then we nee…

is it humane to solve that problem by excluding people based on income? that's what your proposing, as that's how markets solve problems like this: if more people need a product/service than the market can provide prices go up and the poor are excluded. also not trying to be snarky but that's the choice in front of us. part of the problem with free market solutions to healthcare is the feasibility of walking away fro…

Stop lying, I haven't proposed anything of the kind. Free market solutions often include giving cash subsidies to certain participants (and you would be aware of this if you had bothered to do even basic research on serious healthcare system reform proposals before commenting). I'm simply pointing out that it's a complex problem with multiple causes and there is no simple solution.

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

#300

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.

I don't know which people you're referring to, but the conclusion is pretty clear: the _share_ of the total pie captured by labor is shrinking. Productivity is increasing, but capital is capturing all, or almost all, the benefits of that increased productivity and economic growth.

AI is going to further exacerbate this inequality.

Time to re-read Capital In the 21st Century.

Post reply on HN