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

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

#311

Post by rsalus » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 5:22 PM UTC

legitster wrote: post #286

rsalus wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Fair, but the year over year growth of labor productivity has been really consistent, as has consumer prices: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=tjto So in terms of how much consumers are making in relation to their expenses, it's been remarkably steady this whole time.

yes, but wage growth has not tracked productivity: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1X020

household expenses have been increasing without commensurate wage growth, resulting in lower savings: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PSAVERT

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

#312

Post by deaux » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 5:25 PM UTC

nairboon wrote: post #30

kevmo wrote: post #10

This is clearly heading in a direction where the USA is going to elect a huge number of socialists, who in turn are going to enact massive taxes on billionaires and break up the monopolies.[1] This is why I think the billionaire oligarchs are literally mentally ill. They've won the entire game. They control everything. They live like gods, they twitch a pinky and millions dance. But their response to all of this powe…

Remember Occupy Wall Street? Back then the oligarchs were somewhat scared.

I too don't believe that GP's dream is going to happen, but the current momentum is much stronger than in the OWS days. Maybe it's less visible to some because the world has moved into online algorithmic bubbles rather than people camping in front of Wall Street. If they were more scared back then than they are now, it's not because the current momentum is actually weaker.

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

#313

Post by GlickWick » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 5:25 PM UTC

clates wrote: post #238

GlickWick wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The origin of the word is a bit darker than its meaning, unfortunately. It comes from the Greek word for Uterus. You can kinda fill in the blanks from there as to how it came to its modern meaning.

virtue signaling of the highest degree.

Nah, I don't care either way. Just explaining to the person why the definition isn't the whole story.

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

#314

Post by missedthecue » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 5:26 PM UTC

rsalus wrote: post #225

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.

> 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.

Increases in labor productivity is a curious thing to think about. Do I deserve more wages for using AutoCad instead of drafting paper?

- The amount I'm working hasn't increased. Still an 8 hour day.

- My job honestly is easier than it used to be; certainly less menial.

- Strictly speaking, the education requirement is actually lower. It's easier and a lower bar to learn to become a decent designer in AutoCad than to learn to effectively use old drafting tools (even though the formal four year engineering degree still takes four years).

But it's also true that in spite of this, my output is higher. Should I capture the increased output or should the innovators of the tools? What about the firms that invest in procuring these tools and production technology? Should the customers capture the increased output through lower prices? Or should the innovators, firms, and customers all get less, and instead my wages should get bigger?

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

#315

Post by jmye » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 5:27 PM UTC

bendbro wrote: post #115

[flagged]

[flagged]

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

#316

Post by GlickWick » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 5:27 PM UTC

palmotea wrote: post #167

GlickWick wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The origin of the word is a bit darker than its meaning, unfortunately. It comes from the Greek word for Uterus. You can kinda fill in the blanks from there as to how it came to its modern meaning.

> The origin of the word is a bit darker than its meaning, unfortunately. We should all just stop speaking. The origin of too many words is problematic. Just think of how many were coined by racists and misogynists!

Nah, that's knee-jerk. Don't have a particular horse in this race, just explaining why some people might react this way to the word if they're aware of the history behind it. We as a society can determine whether or not we like certain words in our vernacular.

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

#317

Post by zer00eyz » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 5:28 PM UTC

digitaltrees wrote: post #265

zer00eyz wrote: post #126

Earlier 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.

It can be both. Look at the stress hormones people live with. Look at other stats like rising infant mortality, dropping IQ etc.

> Look at the stress hormones people live with.

https://research.senedd.wales/research-articles/poverty-and-...

Does being poor cause mental health issues, or are mental heath issues a cause of poverty... The answer here clearly better access (read free) to mental heath care, and it wont have the impact one would think (see the UK data).

> Look at other stats like rising infant mortality

You mean the attributions tied directly to maternal complications: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsrr/vsrr033.pdf

The thing is we changed how we collect this data, to something that would be considered bad: https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2024/03/13/maternal-mo... - There are tons of criticism on how we collect this data, they are valid, if you dont like this source, find another its a mess of our own creation.

> dropping IQ etc.

The largest root cause is that people spend too much time on their cell phone dumbing themselves down. Think about that one... no one feels the need to elevate themselves, they are happy to spend time on what amounts to leisure. Would you have sympathy for the person who gets fired cause they chose to play 18 holes of golf 5 days a week rather than do their job?

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

#318

Post by jandrewrogers » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 5:28 PM UTC

dozerly wrote: post #90

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.

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.

The BLS and Federal Reserve both have data showing that the median American household has >$1,000 left over every month after all ordinary expenses, including housing, healthcare, and iPhones.

Any definition of "abject poverty" that includes a comfortable lifestyle and $12-15k excess income every year is not a serious definition.

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

#319

Post by hash872 » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 5:28 PM UTC

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #82

hash872 wrote: post #29

I don't have time for a longer comment, but AIUI this is mostly a statistical illusion caused by changes to US tax law- previously income that was attributed to 'labor' shifted over to LLCs/S corps for more beneficial tax rates. The doctor, lawyer, financial advisor, CPA etc. that in past decades would have had his/her income run through a W2 arrangement shifted to becoming a one-person corporation

Do you have any evidence for this, at all?

Sure

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/2013b_e... https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/131/wp-107.pdf https://eml.berkeley.edu/~yagan/LaborShare.pdf

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

#320

Post by stretchwithme » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 5:29 PM UTC

u1hcw9nx wrote: post #180

vannevar wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is consistent with the observation that the top 10% have captured a disproportionate share of GDP growth over the past few decades. https://equitablegrowth.org/new-data-reveal-how-u-s-economic... "The past three economic expansions have largely benefitted the top 10 percent. In each, the top decile received between 47 percent and 59 percent of all income growth in the expansion."

Also note: Labor share has declined similarly across OECD countries for several decades. Automation, robots, software etc. they are all capital share.

Employee compensation comes from capital. And employees are working at companies that provide robots, etc.

There's a return on capital than is not spent on employees. That reflects how much capital is growing and how much can be spent on employees in the future.