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

#431

Post by nradov » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 7:11 PM UTC

ajross wrote: post #394

nradov wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You misinterpreted by comment. It was not partisan, and was based on reality and cold economics rather than ideology. None of the major US political parties have workable reform proposals that could actually be implemented and achieve net positive results. This is a complex topic with no tl;dr possible. If you want to be able to participate in discussions on a rational, quantitative basis then a good starting point i…

> [my comment] was not partisan, and was based on reality and cold economics rather than ideology That's what all partisans think. Nonetheless you put needless scare quotes around Medicare for All, dismissed it as a "total fantasy", and, I guess, helpfully suggested I read a book by (literally!) the head of the Trump administration's FDA as a reference for "What Broke American Health Care". If that was all done in go…

Is there anything in that book that is factually incorrect, or are you going to stick with a lazy, low-effort dismissal? If you had actually read it you would know that it's refreshingly free of partisan ideology.

The quotes around "Medicare For All" were intended not to scare anyone but to identify a general set of policy proposals that have been floating around lately.

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

#432

Post by wqaatwt » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 7:15 PM UTC

logicchains wrote: post #244

wqaatwt wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speculation or actual investment? Assuming that the allocation of capital is somehow aligned with what’s optimal for the economy/society seems naive

It's not naive, it's near optimal. The system rewards people who've done well at capital allocation with more capital to allocate, and takes capital away from those who've done poorly at it. And there's no better predict of future performance at allocating capital than past performance.

Well my point was that it might be optimal for the one doing the allocation and maximize their returns. That does not mean its optimal for the economy and society on the whole.

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

#433

Post by bluefirebrand » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 7:16 PM UTC

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #378

didgetmaster wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every discussion about the 'top 10%' seems to make the underlying assumption that the set of people who fall under that category are consistent. While there are certainly individuals who enter the top 10% (or top 1%) and stay there; there are large numbers of people who move in and out of those categories. For me personally, I am in the top 10%; but a few decades ago, I was not.

The statistical evidence for your claim is not good. There is certainly a generational effect in that 5 year olds are typically not in the upper decile, simply because they generally have little to no individual wealth or income. But in the USA at least, most people die in the same decile they were born into.

Something I've seen a lot is claims about individuals being self made, climbing the ladder from grit and ingenuity and such. Look at Bezos, he's an example of climbing the ladder! Or Zuckerberg!

And when you dig a bit more, you kinda find out this isn't really true?

I mean look at this AI summary of asking "Was Jeff Bezos born into wealth"

> Jeff Bezos was not born into wealth; his mother was a 17-year-old student and his adoptive father was an impoverished Cuban refugee who arrived in the U.S. alone at age 16. However, his maternal grandfather owned a large Texas ranch and later provided roughly $250,000 to help fund the launch of Amazon

Oh so his parents weren't wealthy only his grandparents. That's totally different

You know what my Grandpa gave me? A used car worth about 3 grand. Still amazing, I'm still very grateful to him! But the comparison here is absolutely not in the same league!

And I'm still a fortunate one, because many people get much less than a car from their families

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

#434

Post by cherryteastain » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 7:16 PM UTC

pessimizer wrote: post #419

cherryteastain wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Top 10%" is such a misleading slice here. The guy who's at the 9.99th percentile is a normal salaried worker not doing better. The gains are entirely concentrated in the tiny billionaire slice buried inside that 10%. In fact wage growth for the top decile has been recently slower than bottom deciles [1]. Incomes still grow fast in the top decile, but mostly due to assets. And those assets are disproportionately in t…

The top 10% incomes have tons of assets, especially homes. Saying that billionaires "disproportionately" have more assets than non-billionaires is a tautology that says nothing. You might as well say that tall people have disproportionately more height than people who are not tall. Billionaire is a statement about wealth, not income. > In fact wage growth for the top decile has been recently slower than bottom decile…

Point is that income from dividends, rent and capital gains far outstrips the $150k the 90th percentile guy makes [1], which you have conveniently ignored. The $150k 90th percentile earner has more common with the $50k 50th percentile earner than he does with the billionaire earning $100M of capital gains, dividends and rent from assets. The 90th percentile guy is a wage laborer like the 50th percentile guy; they are effectively the same class. The only different class is the capital owning class.

Being able to afford a slightly nicer car or house does not change your class. Being able to influence elections, buy lobbying power, play power games, being in the "in" group of capitalism changes your class.

[1] https://dqydj.com/income-percentile-calculator/

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

#435

Post by mancerayder » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 7:18 PM UTC

Ekaros wrote: post #322

mancerayder wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Underlying rent are other things going up - property taxes, input costs like labor and materials, and insurance. While we must be mindful of greed and abuse, we need to include all underlying costs before just assuming people are cranking up rents. I'm not a landlord but I own property and the costs are gotten vicious lately. Labor is expensive, materials are insane, energy costs, and now insurance are suffocating. A…

Energy is one variable. But have things gotten less efficient as things keep going up in prices? Is more labour needed to produce the same? There is stuff like regulation forcing more expensive things. But in general if there was efficiency gains things should keep the same price or drop. Somehow this isn't really happening very well. But my thesis really is that these things are not underlying the rents. But rents a…

Your theory is just that - theory. Just talk to someone who owns property, or do the research. Insurance costs, Up, energy, Up, when something breaks, it costs more to fix it. It's basic input cost math.

I don't know what 'efficiency gains' means here. Maybe you're thinking of car production or software development. Insurance goes up due to climate change, due to insurance companies taking advantage of a poorly regulated environment, whatever other reasons. Energy goes up due to world events, due to more people, due to extreme weather. Labor costs go up due to inflation.

It feels as thought the 'rent is too damn high' crowd needs an enemy, and the enemy is landlord. And again, not a landlord, but I'm getting bitten by high costs of keeping property. I didn't even talk about the property taxes.

If I WERE a landlord, I'd either pass it along to the tenant as higher rent, or I'd sell the damn thing.

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

#436

Post by cataphract » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 7:19 PM UTC

rsalus wrote: post #367

larkost wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Or should the innovators, firms, and customers all get less, and instead my wages should get bigger? In almost all of the cases the "innovators" are themselves workers whose share of the outcome has been dropping. And the "customers" have never gotten a piece of the profits; we are already past the point where reduced prices would have happened (competition) in this system. And I think that by "firms" you really me…

the argument is productivity gains are increasingly driven by technological advances, which are spurred by capital investment. for example, if a company purchases software that increases their accountants productivity by 5x, should those accountants immediately be paid 4-5x more? I would contend that the accountant should not - it should flow to who bore the cost of the input (capital owners). however, if you starve…

> it destroys the consumer base that capital relies on to buy its goods and services. therefore, society requires broad wealth distribution to function

This is becoming less and less true, because now consumption is becoming dominated by asset owners, to the point that a good jobs report is bad news because it means the fed are less likely to drop rates and through that inflate asset prices.

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

#437

Post by wqaatwt » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 7:19 PM UTC

aeternum wrote: post #339

wqaatwt wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn’t it the complete opposite? i.e. high automatization means that a single worker can create many times more value than before. However it reduces the demand for labor and worker bargaining power. So companies have no incentive to pair “fair” wages.

That is true but likely only temporarily. Why is the single worker even needed? We tend to have a pretty human-centric worldview so if there's a single human working to keep a hotel running, our default is to attribute all the generated value to them when it really isn't the case. You can imagine that hotel at some point in the near future goes from requiring 1 worker to keep it running to zero.

> is the single worker even needed

Because he is? I do not expect for some sort of universal “AGI” to emerge within my lifetime which would supplant humans in every area (of course what do I know.. but still there is no real indication we are even remotely close to that currently)

> default is to attribute all the generated value to them when it really isn't the case

Certainly, you should attribute a significant proportion to the people who installed the automated system and even more to those who designed it.

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

#438

Post by marcusverus » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 7:21 PM UTC

dismalaf wrote: post #303

dozerly wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 poverty rate in the US is 10%. https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2025/demo/p60-28...

It's actually far better than that! When people hear "poverty rate", they think "the percentage of people living in poverty". That's not what the census data on poverty is reporting, though. The census data is based on income only. It excludes in-kind welfare (Food Stamps, HUD, and Medicaid) and even excludes some welfare that is paid out in cash (like refundable tax credits). In other words, the census data is reporting that 10% of Americans earn under the poverty line. The number living under the poverty line is far, far lower.

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

#439

Post by ajross » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 7:21 PM UTC

nradov wrote: post #431

ajross wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> [my comment] was not partisan, and was based on reality and cold economics rather than ideology That's what all partisans think. Nonetheless you put needless scare quotes around Medicare for All, dismissed it as a "total fantasy", and, I guess, helpfully suggested I read a book by (literally!) the head of the Trump administration's FDA as a reference for "What Broke American Health Care". If that was all done in go…

Is there anything in that book that is factually incorrect, or are you going to stick with a lazy, low-effort dismissal? If you had actually read it you would know that it's refreshingly free of partisan ideology. The quotes around "Medicare For All" were intended not to scare anyone but to identify a general set of policy proposals that have been floating around lately.

Again, we're not having an argument about health care, and I'm not trying to dismiss the book you cited that pertains to the argument we're not having. I'm saying that book is clearly partisan, as is your argument.

And I'm using that observation (which you keep reinforcing!) to justify my suspicion around the economic point you tried to make upthread (that, I guess, "hidden" health care "income" would increase labor's share if measured).

It's 100% clear to me that the labor/income point is spin, and to be blunt I don't believe it for an instant.

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

#440

Post by wqaatwt » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 7:24 PM UTC

autoexec wrote: post #206

wqaatwt wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are countries in Europe which have entirely privatized healthcare systems (not even medicare/medicaid equivalents). US tried adopting some of their practices with Obamacare and even that didn’t work out. Singlepayer isn’t really necessary to have a reasonably affordable and accessible healthcare system proper regulation is.

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.

> but we've never seen it anywhere in the US.

Well just copy paste the Swiss system (of course that’s not feasible both the “free market” and pro “socialized” single payer supporters would hate it). However they have a heavily regulated, reasonably affordable fully private healthcare system.