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

381–390 of 573 posts

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

#381

Post by saghm »

Schiendelman wrote: post #255
saghm wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If investments didn't grow at a faster rate than interest, why would anyone ever invest money at all instead of putting into a savings account? I don't know why it''s hard to imagine that a large loan with a relatively low interest rate might be able to be invested for more than enough profits to pay off the taxes and the loan with some to spare

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

#382

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

missedthecue wrote: post #314
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.

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 t…

If using autocad does indeed make you more productive, then your 8 hours per day of labor generates more value for your employer.

Where the benefits of that end up is one of the most fundamental questions of politics. As you note, there are arguments for it to flow to any combination of several different groups. Deciding how much goes to each group is what politics is all about, in the end.

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

#383

Post by saghm »

nickff wrote: post #157
saghm wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the income was earned through dividends, maybe this would be a reasonable argument. Most of the time stock just gets bought and sold by investors rather than the company itself though, so it's not clear why corporate tax would have anything to do with this. Sure, the stock price should somehow be tied to the actual value of the company, but for a while now it's been mostly indistinguishable from a Ponzi scheme oth…

I agree that in a bull market, many corporations are not purchased and sold at book value. That said, we are on the largest bull-run in history, so we shouldn’t treat this as the norm, and base all our long-term decisions on the current situation.

So if I'm understanding correctly, your argument is that it doesn't make sense to make people who make more money pay the same rate of taxes as regular people do because we should ignore the fact that they've been doing it for longer than ever before?

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

#384

Post by topgrain2 »

nickff wrote: post #349
topgrain2 wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Incidentally, corporate taxes are why many small business owners pay themselves wage income, rather than doing stock buybacks or dividends. You've been sold some BS. Usually this is because you're required to take a "reasonable" wage for your role in a company. Otherwise I guarantee you every independent contractor out there (among others) would be operating in a way that made 100% of their income business profit,…

Many locales have laws that do not allow remuneration above the 'reasonable wage', to prevent tax circumvention by having employers spread wage payments across multiple family members of employees, but I am not familiar with any jurisdiction with a minimum reasonable wage law or regulation. Could you please link some source for the claim that business owners are required to accept a 'reasonable wage'?

https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employe...

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

#385

Post by porridgeraisin »

9rx wrote: post #262
Jabrov wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about being pointless, it's just plain wrong. The median (not average) household income in the US is 80K USD. p25 is 40K. p10 is 20K. They're struggling, sure. But I wouldn't call that abject poverty.

> But I wouldn't call that abject poverty. But you could. There is no law of the universe that is going to stop you. Words are something randomly made up by humans. > it's just plain wrong. Again, words are completely made up, so it can't really be wrong in the traditional mathematical sense. It could be misinterpreted, perhaps. Of course that is dependent on how you've chosen to randomly make up "wrong".

I know it's against the rules, but oh my this reminds of me a certain other popular forum site in its heyday.

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

#386

Post by dominotw »

throwway120385 wrote: post #362
dominotw wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

insurance issues are provider and insurer going back and forth detrmining if doctors assessment of necessity is agreed upon. i am not familiar with universal system. In that system if your doctor thinks something is medically necessary then thats the end of it and its gets done?

In my experience, insurance issues are usually insurer and patient going back and forth and then patient getting 6 different answers from 6 different representatives, then reviewing the 3000 page plan document, finding the single line that properly describes what should have happened, calling the insurance company, explaining to the rep how your plan works, and demanding that it be reprocessed. Like my wife has to do…

you think there is scope for a non profit here that can advocate on behalf of patients and read the contracts. perhaps with ais help.

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

#387

Post by nradov »

throwway120385 wrote: post #362
dominotw wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

insurance issues are provider and insurer going back and forth detrmining if doctors assessment of necessity is agreed upon. i am not familiar with universal system. In that system if your doctor thinks something is medically necessary then thats the end of it and its gets done?

In my experience, insurance issues are usually insurer and patient going back and forth and then patient getting 6 different answers from 6 different representatives, then reviewing the 3000 page plan document, finding the single line that properly describes what should have happened, calling the insurance company, explaining to the rep how your plan works, and demanding that it be reprocessed. Like my wife has to do…

Yes, part of the overall solution needs to be health plan transparency on clinical guidelines and coverage rules. Currently much of that is concealed, or applied unevenly.

But we're not going to eliminate misery from the healthcare system. Demand is effectively infinite, mainly from patients with complex conditions, and supply is finite. Developed countries with more socialized healthcare systems typically do a pretty good job of delivering basic primary care but things often fall apart when more complex or specialized care is needed. Those systems also ration and deny care but it tends to be through forcing patients to wait in long queues, or simply not offering expensive treatments at all. Like under the UK NHS, some prescription cancer drugs just aren't available. So that's a different form of misery.

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

#388

Post by Kbelicius »

mrtksn wrote: post #15

And yet for some reason all the algorithmic pricing targets the laborers, when apps hunt for whales they target teenagers. Ridiculous. There is a need for proper pricing for the rich, i.e. Elon can pay a million dollars per meal. Someone is leaving money on the table.

Ha, you just reminded me of something that I read a long time ago. Some history book which relayed a story from some part of islamic world from centuries ago.

A king goes hunting but fails to catch anything. Hungry, he goes to a nearby village. He enters the inn and orders some quail eggs. After finishing the meal, he goes to pay. The innkeeper tells him that the meal costs ten gold coins.

"I did not know quail eggs were so rare in these parts," says the king.

"They are not," replies the innkeeper, "but kings are."

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

#389

Post by porridgeraisin »

Bjartr wrote: post #187
idiotsecant wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is quickly going to devolve into 'nobody suffers unless their suffering as at least as bad as the worst suffering that exists', so let's just go ahead and get that out of the way and move on to something less pointless.

GP could have just said "poverty" and the vast majority of unconstructive discussion that has followed could have been avoided. Instead they said "abject poverty" as an emotional emphasizer, and people rightly called them out.

Yep. A lot of such people use words in order to elicit the reaction a legitimate use of said words would get, because they don't want the usually more muted reaction/attention using the correct word would get.

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

#390

Post by porridgeraisin »

digitaltrees wrote: post #198
gruez wrote: 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.

Bigger picture truths don't justify smaller picture lies.
Post reply on HN