Live data from Hacker News

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

libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org

401–410 of 573 posts

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

#401

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.

That overall drop in share of income since 2000 is related to the "giant sucking sound" Ross Perot warned about in 1992:

"It's pretty simple: If you're paying $12, $13, $14 an hour for factory workers and you can move your factory South of the border, pay a dollar an hour for labor, ... have no health care, that's the most expensive single element in making a car, have no environmental controls, no pollution controls and no retirement, and you don't care about anything but making money, there will be a giant sucking sound going south."

While Perot was warning about NAFTA, the jobs did go elsewhere: China and other countries with cheaper labor. Globalization led to labor competition, which increased the supply of workers.

Meanwhile, companies captured the value of the increased supply of workers. More cheap labor = more production, for a world that had latent demand for cheaper output. It ended up a net benefit for businesses (capital owners), and overseas workers. This is at least partially if not significantly where the growing gap between wage growth % and GDP growth % comes from.

The macro economists were right that globalization would be more efficient overall for the world, economically. But that came at the expense of the US labor that saw its wage growth eroded as a consequence.

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

#402
post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

defining classes is complicated. if you do it based on income percentile it will always be arbitrary and never reflect actual economic relations. the most accepted way to divide in socialist circles is based off where your income comes from, your relation to capital. if you have to work for someone else thats working class (proletariat), if you can be independent you are professional or middle class, if you own the m…

"I define things so that I'm in the good set and _they_ are in the bad set". It's also utterly deranged even when you just consider that most tech workers get compensated with stock.

Most tech workers do not get compensated with stock. A fraction of the best compensated get stock. The next tier down get options with so many caveats that they are effectively worthless, and the tier below them are straight salary with no equity even entering the horizon for them.

And yea, once you start getting actual capital and start reaping the benefits of that wealth you start being identified as a capitalist in the socialist world view.

Edit: the comment I replied to originally had this sentence at the end

> Very typical for a certain type of folk. It's also utterly deranged even when you just consider that most tech workers get compensated with stock.

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

#403
post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As successful as Obamacare has been it didn't really do much to lower the cost of healthcare or claw back the billions wasted to insurance company profits. There might be some kind of regulation just as effective as single payer, but we've never seen it anywhere in the US.

> As successful as Obamacare has been it didn't really do much to lower the cost of healthcare It dramatically lowered the cost to consumers. Further, conflating overall healthcare spend with the portion of spend tied to a significantly lower-cost population is apples and oranges at best and represents a fundamental misunderstanding of healthcare cost in general. It's ok to not have opinions about things you know you…

"lowered" hasn't made much difference. Before the affordable care act Americans spent more and got less for their money and that hasn't changed. Insurance companies are still stuffing their pockets with billions and denying coverage. Americans struggled to afford the care that they needed before the affordable care act, and they still struggle to afford the care that they need today. The affordable care act was a very small improvement, but it didn't move the needle compared to other nations

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

#405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>And employees are working at companies that provide robots, etc.

Just as are the top executives. And the shareholders that have put money into companies that provide "robots, etc.". All these people, including labor, are stakeholders. If there was 5% GDP growth that got reflected as 5% growth in net earnings for the company, one would expect that all the stakeholders would see roughly a 5% increase in their personal earnings from the company. The dollar amount would be higher for higher earners (5% of $1M is greater than 5% of $50k), but the percentage increase would be roughly in line. The real world results are not even close to this "rising tide lifts all boats" ideal.

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

#406
post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I define things so that I'm in the good set and _they_ are in the bad set". It's also utterly deranged even when you just consider that most tech workers get compensated with stock.

Most tech workers do not get compensated with stock. A fraction of the best compensated get stock. The next tier down get options with so many caveats that they are effectively worthless, and the tier below them are straight salary with no equity even entering the horizon for them. And yea, once you start getting actual capital and start reaping the benefits of that wealth you start being identified as a capitalist i…

Eh? Which tech company doesn't give RSUs to fresh grads? Startups of course give options.

And how many american middle class+ (generalizing beyond tech workers) don't own equity?

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

#407
post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Yes, that is intended to disallow officers from avoiding taxes by being compensated via ‘loans’ and other means. I can’t find any case where dividends or buybacks were found to be violations of that rule. https://cpataxteam.com/blog/s-corp-owners-are-you-paying-you...

Do the math for yourself. Paying corporate taxes on profits, then dividend taxes on what gets paid out is not a savings versus paying income+payroll tax (which comes from money that is treated as an expense at the corporate level).

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

#408
post #383
post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I’m saying that we shouldn’t base our tax policy on a bubble. The dot-com bubble was treated like a solution to the federal deficit, and it wasn’t.

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

#409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've often wondered why we don't abolish corporation tax and instead tax capital gains and dividends like normal income.

Because capital gains taxes really discourage selling which gums up the economy

Wouldn't prices of assets just rise to compensate? People still need liquidity.

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

#410
post #395
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.

im going to be controversial and say no one should have anything other than labor as their main income until they retire. anything you can do thats useful to society counts as labor (but not vice versa, you can work as a robber or corporate lobbyist). from line cooks to wall street ceos to open source volunteers and stay at home moms who dont get paid but still work. landlords and executives count because management…

What if you volunteer 30-40 hours a week but pay your bills with rental income? What's your position on that?
Post reply on HN