Labor Share of National Income!

[zymurgy]

it does not undermine my conclusion.

There simply is no case you can make that if you adjust the 'workers share' up to 65% instead of the 53% it has fallen to since 1945 that the wealth accrual that would have been made by the working class as that wealth was shifted from the elite class, would see them better off and more able to deal with challenges today.

So even in your argument that the systemic issues still exist, that DOES NOT change the FACT that the working class is better off in dealing with them.

there is no instance where a much poorer working class is better off dealing addressing or dealing with the systemic issues you want to highlight.

I created an thread and OP to discuss :

- the growing wealth disparity over the last few decades as outlined in the national income

That is true and factual and exists.

You do not want to discuss that and instead what the thread to be about :

- the much broader systemic issues that have created this situation

Which again can be true but in NO WAY make my premise or thread incorrect.

You keep treating that chart like it says “workers lost 10% and billionaires stole it.” It doesn’t.


It says labor compensation fell as a share of total economic output. That is an interesting problem worth discussing. It does not prove your preferred explanation for why it happened, and it certainly doesn’t prove that simply moving the percentage back to 65% fixes the underlying problems.


That’s exactly why I keep bringing up the causes you don’t want to discuss.


If housing, healthcare, energy and government keep getting more expensive; we’re buried in debt; we reduce labor-force participation; and we pursue policies that weaken wage competition, then artificially changing who gets what “share” does not make those problems disappear.


You keep pointing at the thermometer and insisting the discussion must be limited to “the temperature is high.”


I’m asking why the house is on fire.

 

[signalmankenneth]

"As Trump continues to drive wealth up to the Oligarch class which is the opposite of what he promised in his America First agenda, his magat followers, amongst the poorest in the US, clap like seals as they struggle to financially survive"

Is that a fact derived from the information on your chart or is that just one of your TDS flair ups? Dont be a bitch like usual answer the question.

 

[Diogenes]

View attachment 92488

Cartoon Ken the Cong collaborator strikes again.

 

[QP!]

You keep treating that chart like it says “workers lost 10% and billionaires stole it.” It doesn’t.

false stop telling me what i am thinking when i have said no such thing and you keep saying that graph shows the rich earned nothing more and shares remained the same.

It says labor compensation fell as a share of total economic output.

Yes which is what i am pointing at.

That is an interesting problem worth discussing.

Yes which is why i am discussing it.

It does not prove your preferred explanation for why it happened, and it certainly doesn’t prove that simply moving the percentage back to 65% fixes the underlying problems.

Correct. But my arguments on this point are better then you non arguments as you try to move to another separate point.

That’s exactly why I keep bringing up the causes you don’t want to discuss.

As i said. Two things can be true and once. Re-read that post by me and if you say it is impossible for my Point 1 and Point 2 to BOTH be true then make that argument.

If housing, healthcare, energy and government keep getting more expensive; we’re buried in debt; we reduce labor-force participation; and we pursue policies that weaken wage competition, then artificially changing who gets what “share” does not make those problems disappear.

Correct. But what you say above DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT that while all that can be true, if the working class still had a 65% shares since the 1960's they would have FAR MORE WEALTH to deal with what you say above.

So again BOTH CAN BE TRUE. The issue you say CAN BE A PROBLEM but also 'fixing the SHARE of National INcome' can help alleviate the stress on the working class, while the problem you address is fixed.

You keep pointing at the thermometer and insisting the discussion must be limited to “the temperature is high.”


I’m asking why the house is on fire.

No. See above.

YOu keep saying 'ignore that the work class could have built far more wealth in the decades since the 1960's if their share was kept at 65% and instead ONLY focus on the under lying problem. '

There simply is no argument you can offer as to why the working class, dealing with the issues you highlight are not better off if the gov't had maintained policy and tax code that kept them at 65% share.

 

[Tbird19482]

The labor share of national income—the portion of economic output paid to workers as wages and benefits—has dropped to historic lows, falling to roughly 53% to 54% of GDP according to recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. This downward trend explains why strong corporate profits and record stock markets have not translated into widespread financial security for average households. [1, 2, 3]

U.S. workers' share of national income falls to a new low​

As Trump continues to drive wealth up to the Oligarch class which is the opposite of what he promised in his America First agenda, his magat followers, amongst the poorest in the US, clap like seals as they struggle to financially survive.

You have to take into consideration that one of the largest group of people , the BABY BOOMERS , are now retiring in large numbers and have for the last 10 years or so.
IMO that has a lot to do with it.

 

[QP!]

You have to take into consideration that one of the largest group of people , the BABY BOOMERS , are now retiring in large numbers and have for the last 10 years or so.
IMO that has a lot to do with it.

the retirement and wealthy boomers impact a ton of areas including the one @T. A. Gardner does not understand as he tries to mock the outflow of some wealthy people to Florida as something new and specific to Mamdani, when it is an expected consequence of the aging wealthy demographic who have for decades moved from colder States to Florida or certain other warmer areas as they age.

 

[Yakuda]

new money is worth the same as old money to those at the top of the chain. by the time the new money reaches us, it is shit

No. Cash now is based on a promise that its worth something. Do you trust the "promise" of the govt regardless of who's in charge? I sure as shit dont

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

The labor share of national income—the portion of economic output paid to workers as wages and benefits—has dropped to historic lows, falling to roughly 53% to 54% of GDP according to recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. This downward trend explains why strong corporate profits and record stock markets have not translated into widespread financial security for average households. [1, 2, 3]

U.S. workers' share of national income falls to a new low​

As Trump continues to drive wealth up to the Oligarch class which is the opposite of what he promised in his America First agenda, his magat followers, amongst the poorest in the US, clap like seals as they struggle to financially survive.

It's not just Trump's fault. It's Repulicans', every last one of them.

 

[Diogenes]

You have to take into consideration that one of the largest group of people , the BABY BOOMERS , are now retiring in large numbers and have for the last 10 years or so. IMO that has a lot to do with it.

Assessment of post #45 (Tbird19482, post-7074736)


ContentThe post responds to the original claim about the labor share falling to historic lows (~53–54%) by offering a demographic explanation:

“You have to take into consideration that one of the largest group of people, the BABY BOOMERS, are now retiring in large numbers and have for the last 10 years or so.IMO that has a lot to do with it.”

Evaluation


Partially relevant, but weak as a primary or major explanation.

What is correct​

• Baby Boomers (born roughly 1946–1964) are a very large cohort. Peak retirement ages have been hit in volume over the last 10–15 years and continue.
• Retirement removes people from the employed labor force. When high-earning or high-seniority workers leave paid employment, their compensation drops out of the “labor compensation” numerator of the labor-share calculation.
• Demographic shifts can influence aggregate labor-force participation, experience/tenure composition of the workforce, and the relative weight of wages vs. capital income (retirees live more on capital/pension income).

These effects are real and appear in labor-market data.

Why it does not “have a lot to do with it”​

The labor-share decline is a long-running structural trend, not a recent phenomenon timed to Boomer retirements:

• The major downward break occurred in the early 2000s (or earlier depending on the series), well before the bulk of Boomer retirements.
• The decline continued and accelerated in periods with different demographic pressures.
• It is observed across many advanced economies with very different age structures and retirement timing.
• Academic and official analyses (BLS, New York Fed, Karabarbounis, Elsby et al., Autor et al., etc.) emphasize technology/automation, globalization, declining union power, rising firm markups/superstar firms, and measurement issues. Demographics appear as a secondary or tertiary factor at best, and usually in the context of overall labor-force participation or composition rather than as a driver of the functional distribution of income between labor and capital.

Retirements reduce the number of people receiving labor compensation, but they do not automatically transfer that income share to capital owners in the way the post implies. The output those workers previously helped produce continues (or is replaced), and the compensation of remaining workers plus capital returns determine the share. Large-scale retirement can even temporarily raise the measured labor share if the departing workers were lower-productivity or if it tightens the labor market for remaining workers—effects that cut in both directions and are not decisive in the data.

Overall judgment​

The observation is directionally sensible as one contributing factor among many, but it is overstated (“has a lot to do with it”). It functions more as a partial demographic footnote than a serious alternative explanation for the multi-decade, multi-country decline in labor’s share of national income. The post does not engage the magnitude, timing, or cross-country evidence that make demographics a minor piece of the story.

 

[Yakuda]

View attachment 92488

So you have no reasoned argument. you think a cartoon verifies the idiotic claim?

 

[QP!]

So you have no reasoned argument. you think a cartoon verifies the idiotic claim?

^ says the guy who has not offered a "reasoned argument" once in the entire time i have been on this forum and 99% of his arguments are versions of 'BUT YOU GUYS AND BIDEN...' spin.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

the retirement and wealthy boomers impact a ton of areas including the one @T. A. Gardner does not understand as he tries to mock the outflow of some wealthy people to Florida as something new and specific to Mamdani, when it is an expected consequence of the aging wealthy demographic who have for decades moved from colder States to Florida or certain other warmer areas as they age.

It's not specific to Mamdani. He's just accelerating it. Democrats / Progressives / the Left in NY have been causing it to happen for decades.

 

[Diogenes]

So you have no reasoned argument. you think a cartoon verifies the idiotic claim?

Cartoon Ken the Cong collaborator doesn't "think", AFAIK. He mostly posts cartoons.

 

[QP!]

I would not cite the unrealized Capital Gains as Bernie does as forcing taxation on that is problematic in many ways and arguably more so on anyone not rich who has stock.

i would however cite any money he borrows against his stock and other assets that is clearly used as an income alternative, to keep actual income taxation low.

The gov't should define 'income' to capture these type of 'loans games', by creating a test that show it is being used as an 'income replacement'.

The Source of the 1% Figure

• • The Calculation: The figure comes from analyses (such as a prominent 2021 report by ProPublica) that divided the federal income taxes Jeff Bezos paid over a multi-year period by the massive estimated growth in his stock wealth (including unsold, unrealized gains). [1, 2]
  • The Result: Using that specific formula, his effective tax rate dropped below 1% (approx. 0.98%) because the vast majority of his wealth accumulation came from stock that he did not sell. [1, 2]

Why the Number is Debated

• • Unrealized Gains vs. Income: Under current U.S. law, paper wealth or stock appreciation is not taxed until the stock is actually sold. If you calculate his tax rate based strictly on his reported, realized income during those years, his actual tax rate was much higher (around 20% to 23%). [1, 2]
  • The Political Debate: Sanders uses the sub-1% metric to highlight how the current tax system fails to capture the growing fortunes of billionaires whose wealth increases through assets rather than traditional wages. Critics argue that comparing taxes paid to unrealized wealth growth distorts how income and tax laws legally function. [1, 2]

 

[AMERICA FIRST]

In the industry I have been engaged in for the last 40 years if your cost of labor exceeds 20% of your gross sales you are starting to be on shaky ground on your balance sheet. Not sure who is ponying up over half.

 

[zymurgy]

Yes which is why i am discussing it.

we both are - you just keep crying intermittingly as we do so

There simply is no argument you can offer as to why the working class, dealing with the issues you highlight are not better off if the gov't had maintained policy and tax code that kept them at 65% share.

You absolutely have not established that.


You are assuming that government could simply decree a 65% labor share while holding employment, productivity, prices, investment, growth and everything else constant.


That isn’t how an economy works.


A higher labor share is not the same thing as higher real living standards for the working class. If wages go up 10% while housing, healthcare, food and energy go up 20%, workers got a bigger nominal paycheck and became poorer.


And even your 65% number tells us nothing about which workers received that income.


You keep treating a ratio as though it is a standard of living. It isn’t.


The entire argument is about what policies actually make ordinary workers wealthier in real terms, not how pretty you can make one percentage on a chart look.

 

[QP!]

we both are - you just keep crying intermittingly as we do so

Wrong.

The issue was you kept telling me i was wrong and discussing the wrong thing and had to discuss your point and not the one i created this thread for.

You absolutely have not established that.
....

Then i will allow you to counter that before answering anything else from you.

Lets for sake of argument accept all your points about the structural issues causing the problems and those issues will continue, explain then how you say my point is wrong and not established that if the Labor class had stayed at 65% share since 1945, growing their wealth significantly since 1945 until now, while this underlying systemic problem persisted, explain how they are not better off?

Explain why you are saying having more person wealth in that class is not helpful to them as society deals with (or ignores) the systemic issues?

 

[zymurgy]

Wrong.

yes you are

The issue was you kept telling me i was wrong and discussing the wrong thing and had to discuss your point and not the one i created this thread for.

Then i will allow you to counter that before answering anything else from you.

Lets for sake of argument accept all your points about the structural issues causing the problems and those issues will continue, explain then how you say my point is wrong and not established that if the Labor class had stayed at 65% share since 1945, growing their wealth significantly since 1945 until now, while this underlying systemic problem persisted, explain how they are not better off?

Explain why you are saying having more person wealth in that class is not helpful to them as society deals with (or ignores) the systemic issues?

You’re changing the claim again.


Of course, all else equal, a working-class household with more real wealth is better off than the same household with less real wealth. Nobody is disputing that.


What you have not established is that government could have simply “kept labor at 65%” from 1945 to today and thereby handed that additional wealth to ordinary workers with no effect on prices, employment, investment, productivity, retirement systems, taxation, or economic growth.


That is the part you keep treating as automatic.


And “labor share” is not the same thing as working-class wealth anyway. Labor share is a percentage of economic output going to labor compensation. It does not tell you how that compensation is distributed among workers, what it buys, how much debt households carry, or what housing, healthcare, food and energy cost.


So yes: more real wealth helps workers.


Your unsupported leap is:


65% labor share = more real wealth for the working class = government could have maintained it without creating other consequences.


That is exactly the causal argument I’ve been asking you to make.

 

[QP!]

yes you are

False.

You’re changing the claim again.

No my claim has remained the same since the start. When you say i am changing it you mean that is because i am not focusing on your claim where you have agreed with MY point 'two things can be true at once', meaning you already conceded my point was true.

Of course, all else equal, a working-class household with more real wealth is better off than the same household with less real wealth. Nobody is disputing that.

Good then you agree with my point and why i made this thread.

What you have not established is that government could have simply “kept labor at 65%” from 1945 to today and thereby handed that additional wealth to ordinary workers with no effect on prices, employment, investment, productivity, retirement systems, taxation, or economic growth....

I do not have to establish that counter factual as it cannot be established or proven any more than you have to establish the opposite of that counter factual proving they would not be better off, which also could not be done.

It is however completely intuitive and logical again as we follow the 'two things can be true' concession i made you make.

On track one, my position, if th gov't HAD NOT engaged in a bunch of selective legislation specifically meant to push wealth UP to the elites and taking it from the Working Class since 1945, it naturally flows they would be wealthier.

On to track two, your point, since they ignore the deeper structural issues the country would still have problems but again instead of just having a super rich elite going in to those issues, you would also have a WEALTHIER working class.

 

[zymurgy]

^sophomoric bore.