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

471–480 of 573 posts

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

#471

Post by newaccountman2 »

fsckboy wrote: post #457
newaccountman2 wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah. The boomers are a real problem.

You say the boomers are a problem simply because they are old and the young hate the old (ageism), and because they have money and you want it, now. Boomers created everything you like about this world, including youth culture itself, "don't trust anybody over 30". Their predecessor generations, their parents and grandparents, believed comprehensively in things you despise. I know this because I hated the boomers whe…

They are a deeply selfish and immoral generation on the whole who make excuses for evil and denigrate anyone tryin to do good. Just looking at their voting patterns makes it quite clear.

Such a lame attempt to defend them by you lol--what makes you think money has anything to do with it? That's Boomer logic; IME, Boomers and right-wingers believe everyone is as self-centered as they are.

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

#472

Post by mmooss »

PaulHoule wrote: post #346
newfriend wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not "absurd"... you're confusing moral value with economic scale. A $1T founder is rewarded for building a massive system that employs hundreds of thousands of people, moved technological progress forward dramatically, and has positively affected the lives millions. A doctor provides life-saving care, but they are physically limited to helping one person at a time. A backup NBA forward might not save lives, but…

To get to the Baumol effect, the movie actor can perform once and be seen by millions whereas the theater actor has to perform at least once a night in front of one roomful of people. So the former can get paid more, a lot more. Probably the highest paid athletes in the world are european soccer players and the thing there is that these salaries can be justified in terms of the value top players bring in a game where…

In European football, relegation is a zero sum outcome for society: One team is relegated and another promoted. On average, equal numbers of fans are happy or sad.

Acting is about art, which brings up different issues and value. But looking at broadcast sports, the marginal value of doing that work is still zero: If that person didn't play football, someone else would and the entertainment benefit would be the same (excluding the few extraordinary athletes like Messi).

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

#473

Post by cindyllm »

joe_mamba wrote: post #400
impossiblefork wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>That's you. but nobody In Sweden drives to work? A smaller fraction than in the US. I think most people I know drive. >I see walking to work as an relative to each individual and their job lcoatiopna dn circumstance of where they live, not a country related thing. Well, it isn't. It's about how walkable environments are. >GDP growth "experts" would disagree. It's the reason we don't have mandatory WFH for white coll…

>but the whole point is the goal of society isn't GDP Then why are people(westerners mostly) bullying Japan for stagnant GPD growth and refusing mass migration to boost their GDP?

[dead]

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

#474

Post by archagon »

vondur wrote: post #351
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."

Aren't most of the tech workers here part of that 10% and I'd assume they own houses in some of the most expensive areas, so they are technically part of the capital class?

You think most of the tech workers here own houses...?

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

#475

Post by aeternum »

wqaatwt wrote: post #437
aeternum wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 prop…

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

Indeed, but what happens if/when they choose to sell the system and someone else buys it? Now the owner is who is generating the value. Even if he hires some maintenance worker to come by once and awhile and check up on it, it is the system (aka the capital), not the worker that is generating the vast majority of the value.

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

#476

Post by chairmansteve »

mc32 wrote: post #185
taeric wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm going to go on a limb and say half of the US is not living in abject poverty? Nor can I get behind the idea that quality of life for folks is on the down trend.

Mississippi, the poorest state, has similar median income to Germany. I’m pretty sure 50% of the people there are not in abject poverty.

This just demonstrates that there is something wrong with the statistics.

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

#477

Post by luizfzs »

macinjosh wrote: post #77

The longer I participate in the economy the more it starts to feel like the end stages of a game of monopoly. There is nothing left to own unless you already are wealthy and the only way to get ahead is luck.

The 2 main differences between our economy and Monopoly is that 1) in ours, some people start with properties and more money in hand and 2) a Monopoly game takes less time to end.

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

#478

Post by ratelimitsteve »

nradov wrote: post #299
ratelimitsteve wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Free market solutions, by definition, exclude external interference. Subsidies, by definition, are market interference by an external actor.

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

#479

Post by colechristensen »

mancerayder wrote: post #435
Ekaros wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 regul…

Times are getting worse and the landlord class is an unnecessary middleman.

And again, the headline is the labor share of income is at an 80-ish year low. The landlord class grew too big. We want many of them to be forced out of the business either by law or by economic loss forcing sale.

A home is a fundamental human right. Maintaining rental profits in the face of economic hardship is not.

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

#480

Post by mynameisbilly »

gruez wrote: post #464
mynameisbilly wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, I was mixing up the related charts. Still, this makes my case even stronger since personal controls for adding more earners to a household. If real median personal income only rose from ~$28k in 1974 to ~45$k today, that's a 60% increase. Median personal income rising by 0.9% every year over 50 years compared to healthcare rising by 3-4% every year since 2000 is not a gap you can ignore. Necessities gre…

>Still, this makes my case even stronger since personal controls for adding more earners to a household. If real median personal income only rose from ~$28k in 1974 to ~45$k today, that's a 60% increase. Labor force participation rate for both males and females has basically been flat for the past decade, so the recent discontent about "costs are all increasing while wages are stagnant or worse" is still unsupported.…

Right, except I acknowledged my initial statement was wrong because I was basing it off of household income when you were actually referring to personal income. So why did you spend the effort refuting that?

Median personal income is per individual, which is obvious. After I corrected myself the question then became "did the typical individual's real income keep pace with the cost of the things they can't avoid buying?". The answer is no. And I already showed why.

Post reply on HN