sattvika
8th June 2011, 23:03
In a 2004 paper from the St. Louis Fed, the authors make the following statement: "The allocation of national income between workers and the owners of capital is considered one of the more remarkably stable relationships in the U.S. economy. As a general rule of thumb, economists often cite labor’s share of income to be about two-thirds of national income—although the exact figure is sensitive to the specific data used to calculate the ratio. Over time, this ratio has shown no clear tendency to rise or fall." It would be wonderful if this was true, and thus if the US population really had a stable distribution of income between laborers and capital owners. Alas it is dead wrong. In fact, as the latest note from David Rosenberg points out, the "labor share of national income has fallen to its lower level in modern history - down to 57.5% in the first quarter from 57.6% in the fourth quarter of last year, 57.8% a year ago, and 59.8% when the recovery began." And here is where the Marxist-Leninist party of the US should pay particular attention: "some recovery it has been - a recovery in which labor's share of the spoils has declined to unprecedented levels."
I can't post a link (until I have 25 posts) so just google "attention marxists zerohedge" or a random string from the quote. Good article and there's also a great chart showing how workers' share of the pie has shrunk.
Thoughts? Is this bad or good? If bad, how can it be rectified, if good, what can be done to encourage it?
I can't post a link (until I have 25 posts) so just google "attention marxists zerohedge" or a random string from the quote. Good article and there's also a great chart showing how workers' share of the pie has shrunk.
Thoughts? Is this bad or good? If bad, how can it be rectified, if good, what can be done to encourage it?