Attention Marxists: Labor's Share Of National Income Drops To Lowest In History

Tyler Durden's picture

Probably the most imprtant secular trend in recent employment data, one that has a far greater impact on the macroeconomic themes than Birth/Death and seasonal adjustment manipulated month to month shifts in the employment pool per either the household or establishment surveys, is the labor share of national income. 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."

Like Rosie, Zero Hedge is not a marxist blog: quite the opposite, but like him we come to the same troubling conclusion: "extremes like this, unfortunately, never seem to lead us to a very stable place." We would go further: not only does the US already have the core elements, should one be so inclined, to provoke a (rather active) anti-fascist movement based on some interpretations of pro-corporatists policies adopted by the administration, but should another be so inclined, the country also has the groundwork in place for another neo-Marxist revolution: just take this chart, add some slogans, mix, and simmer. And who will be the natural enemy? Why only look at the great October revolution in Russia for ideas. History always rhymes.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Al Gorerhythm's picture

SIT-DOWN GLOBAL WITHDRAWAL OF LABOR. STRIKE! I'll just see if dancing with the stars is on first.

IdioTsincracY's picture

That chart matches exactly the decline of Union participation and the decrease in wealth of the middle class...

Now, all I am saying is that when you give up your voice at the bargaining table, then you can't complain about it ...

Companies hane the Chamber of Commerce and lobbyists ... that is fine!

Banks have lobbyists, and hold the politicians by the balls ... that is fine too

workers had unions .... but they are evil .... EVIL I tell you!!!

US Uncut's picture

Wonder what good ol' MISHY boy has to say about this. He who says everything should go private, all unions abolished and everyone who dares to want more should be thrown out on their ass. 

Robot Traders Mom's picture

Sorry to cut in but is there any truth to this??? Why hasn't Tyler posted?




Tyler Durden's picture

Because this is complete non-news. First of all, as we pointed out a long time ago, China's T-Bill holdings fluctuate based on prevailing short term rates. Second, Bills account for less than 1% of total China bill/bond/note holdings and thus their notional is completely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Third: TIC data is consistently wrong, and the bulk of China's marginal purchases (of both bonds and bills) occurs via the UK, and are only captured once a year with a 2 year lookback. In other words, only the June 2010 number is valid. Lastly, the linked article did the same error Bloomberg did by comparing apples and oranges, i.e., the post June 2010 and pre June 2010 time series. 

Should we continue?

And yes, here is the chart we posted on this extremely irrelevant topic in February:

This is the only chart that is even modestly relevant (reported two weeks ago), and even it is probably completely wrong when UK holdings are accounted for.

GeneMarchbanks's picture

That, ladies and gentleman, is a professional.

In other news... something terrible is going to happen and you can't prepare/predict for it or understand it fully after the fact. Good night now. Have a pleasant weekend:)

BTW Tyler purdy colors of those charts.

morkov's picture

US labour is subsidised by "chinese" labour. try to labour the whole product on your own, please! the prevailing ratio in the communist states prior to '89 was 1 labour/4 state. why would you think US will not go to that level also?

bbq on whitehouse lawn's picture

Once or twice a week Zerohedge should shut down on account of hangover.  Only so often you can be right before throwing up in a bucket.

Being this right, this fast, is asking for an "evil dead" kind of weekend. Stay safe.

Less you think the happier you stay.

Really take a break. These characters arn't going as far as you think.

You need a vacation; so take one, nothing will happen that will not happen again when you get back.


tired1's picture

Thanks for the insight, I've been looking for this type of info for several weeks. One would think that info of such import would be more readily available but it's hidden better than military secrets.

I recall writing a paper on the USSR's internal economic viability back in the mid 80's. Turns out that most of it was self conflicting crap. My conclusion was that the USSR would implode 'soon.'

I'm getting the same feeling about the US, not much longer until some kind of major reset.

Rusty Shorts's picture

 - so what yer saying is, the banksters gave the US enough rope to hang itself with?

GoinFawr's picture

then they tied the knot and put it around the middle class' neck... erm, isn't this what the banksters always do to nations that get a bit too big in the britches with their whole 'sovereignty' trip?

I mean, judging by even a cursory look at the historical record of the last couple of centuries, anyway.

InconvenientCounterParty's picture

Before there was organized labor there were simply serfs. Banks and corps and a bunch of chowder headed News Corp clones would like to return to those days.

Not on my watch, bichez


Yen Cross's picture

  Thank you. Ever explored a silver mine?

Rusty Shorts's picture

I explored several gold mines. ... and a copper mine, where gold was a byproduct. but anyway, how ya doing?

Yen Cross's picture

 Miss you Rusty! You are a good person!

Founders Keeper's picture

Hi Tyler.

Yeah. I saw and read same story linked on Drudge. I like Drudge, but shame on them for listing this article. "T-Bills." Whoop-dee-doo.

(In fairness to RoboMom. The article was sensationally titled.)



Howard_Beale's picture

Drudge Smudge. Douchebags galore.

JPG101's picture

As usual: impressive!

Do you sleep?

ZH is a gem...

Yen Cross's picture

 Run these charts as trendlines and stix, and you will get massive response!

Miss anthrope's picture


Awesome, comeback..............


Medea's picture

Someone felt their feathers ruffled.

tmosley's picture

I don't think anyone wants unions abolished, they just shouldn't be given unnatural powers, like the power to FORCE people to join if they want to work.

Freedom of association is real, and must be maintained.

downwiththebanks's picture

The workers themselves have a right to decide whether to run a union shop or not.

A so-called "open shop" is a device used by the bosses to divide the workers, which is obviously the whole point.

redpill's picture

Incorrect. A majority of workers can decide to have a union, which then imposes itself on the rest of the workers also. Then once the union is intrenched it is afforded numerous subsidy protections by the government so that it is nearly impossible to get rid of. Don't paint it as some sort of free choice, it's a government sponsored entity, precisely because it centralizes power and thus makes it easier for politicians to parlay with. It's the same reason politicians favor a handful of large corporations over millions of sole proprietors. Politicians want the power consolidated into the hands of a relative few, so they can, with relative ease, pull the proper strings and get efficiently bought off by as few entities as possible.

downwiththebanks's picture

Under the Wagner Act, maybe.   But you need to study Taft-Hartley.  

Engage in whatever sophistry you choose.  The bottom line is the the bottom line:  Uncle Sam has been quite successful, since the 1960s, in driving union representation down.  Which stands to reason, because White Capital owns government.

redpill's picture

Unions have been successful in driving union representation down more than any other force. Government-sponsored unions only exist as a leech on a free market. When that free market eventually starts to crumble from over-regulation, government intrusion, and union suffocation, the parasite simply cannot survive with the same lifestyle of largesse that it once did. It kills its hosts.

downwiththebanks's picture

What an historical whitewash.

The 'free market' is as real as the Tooth Fairy - never existed, never will.  In fact, the whole POINT of the modern state is to serve the needs and interests of White Capital.

CAPITALISM requires government intervention.  Without state violence, nobody would allow the land and labor of whole civilizations to be appropriated by another.

AnAnonymous's picture

What an historical whitewash.


Most complaints on this site come from people who have started to fall on the wrong side of the fence. They are discovering by living them some sides of the US citizenry system. Harder to deny a situation when you live it.

Yet US citizen nature is denial so in order to keep expressing their nature, US citizens have woven a large denial scheme: the US is no longer functioning as it used to be.

Of course, nothing has changed in the US. The US works the same as it used to in 1776. Never changed since that day.

But some US citizens are unable to cope with that reality so they need to invent a story telling that the US have changed.

Ultimately, if they admit that nothing has changed, that the US works as usual, that it is only them who fell on the wrong side of the barreer, it would be tag them as losers. It cant be.

Howard_Beale's picture

"The US works the same as it used to in 1776. Never changed since that day."

What the hell are you talking about? Corporate citizenry didn't exist in 1776. Slavery was legal in 1776. I could go on and on....

Have I missed some sarcasm? WTF An?

knowless's picture

no, it's just that when "white" people are confronted with the genocide of that native population they generally tend to revert to a guilt perspective where they nullify any good that civilization has done. primitavism only works however when everyone is forced to live in that system by nature, otherwise technology is retained by a group and used to exploit those who either voluntarily or not live a primitive lifestyle.


the native perspective, is either the goal to disestablish current civilizational trends so as to usurp, or bring others back to that point. I really don't want to get in an argument with an adherent of aztlan, but at the same time, the inherent hypocrisy in hating the "white" man while attempting to establish another state in the same model is absurd to me.


there is nothing i can do for the past, as I myself was conquered therein, even though i am "white" my ancestors did not speak english, and did not choose this path.

downwiththebanks's picture

You cannot explain the 'success' of White Capital without explaining the genocide it produced elsewhere.

Historical truth and guilt aren't the same thing.  Too many people want to congratulate themselves - as Whiteboy Banker-Gangsters - for being the most advanced and enlightened people; their arrogance is based on equal parts parts historical delusion and self-delusion concerning their role as parasitical Banker-Gangsters.

tmosley's picture

Yes, you can.  Whites respected natural law, those who were subjected to genocide did not.

When white settlers came to a place, like North America, and built up capital by allowing markets to operate, ie by recognizing that men owned themselves and their property, they became strong.  The natives in ALL cases where they were enslaved or wiped out, universally failed to recognize those rights.  The North American indians failed to recognize the white settlers right to property (or that of neighboring tribes, or of the individuals within their own tribes), so would steal things from them.  Many failed to recognize their self ownership, and killed them.  The natural response to this violation of natural law was violence.  And because the whites had recognized those natural rights for so long, and built up so much capital, the ensuing war was very one sided.

The Aztecs on the other had, DID recognize the right to property.  This recognition allowed them to build up great cities, and develop many technologies (including aqueducts and optical devices).  However, they FAILED to recognize the right of self ownership, ESPECIALLY among those tribes that surrounded them.  They took their warriors, and their children, and alternately TORE OUT THEIR HEARTS, and skinned their little girls alive and wore their skin with their dicks sticking through the vaginas for fertility ceremonies.  This disgusting and MASSIVE violation meant that even a relatively tiny disruption, like the appearance of a few dozen westerners with a few modern weapons stirred up the entire countryside to join the newcomers in throwing down their oppressors.  LITERALLY NOTHING the Spanish could have done could be worse than what the Aztecs were doing to them.

On the other hand, there HAVE been instances where the whites were clearly in the wrong, like India and China.  Those cultures respected natural rights for the most part, and had accumulated much capital, and were fairly united.  Of course, in these cases, it wasn't white settlers that were the problem, but rather the GOVERNMENTS of the expansionist western nations.  Those governments only recognized the rights of their own citizens, not those of foreigners, even in those very foreign lands.  Of course, their military power was strong enough to take advantage of the fairly minor violations of natural rights which had gone on, but the governmental abuse of power inevitably lead to revolution and independence.  

The saddest part about all of this is that the whites didn't understand these principles.  They thought they won because they were white, or because they were "chosen", or for other foolish reasons.  If they had understood these principles, rather than just adhering to them, they could have taught them to the native populations, and the world would have industrialized much more quickly, leading to a better situation for everyone.

downwiththebanks's picture

To say that everyone is better off because of the raping, robbing and pillaging done by White Capital of the planet and the world's population is such a profound mis-representation of history (and the present) that I hardly know where to begin.

What you call "Natural Law" was an invention of the Enlightenment as a justification for why smelly, hairy White plunderers should be allowed to steal so much shit with so little effort.

Your History Channel understanding of the Indigenous cultures - namely the so-called 'Aztec - is hardly compelling.  They were not 'individualistic' and what you call "their property" was much more a collective ownership than an individual one.

There was no historical evidence for an individual existing outside of society for the purpose of fucking over others for their own benefit.  But White Capital needed to legitimize itself, so it was created out of whole cloth by a handful of propagandists for elites who we today call philosophes that gave birth to "natural law" and a bunch of other words that legitimated theft under the veneer of 'right'.

They - White Capital - "built up capital" through enslavement and pillage and acted like it happened naturally, accidentally, or by "voluntary exchange" because White Supremacy needed defenders.

tmosley's picture

Wow, you have literally no idea what you are talking about.

You are saying the Nauhatl (ie the Aztecs) were better off sacrificing tens of thousands of human beings to the gods every year than they are now (ie the Second world nation of Mexico, where I lived in for a year, with a host family, and got to know a LOT about their history and culture).  The Aztecs weren't god damn communists, you fucking idiot.  Stop pulling shit out of your ass.  They were religion dominated fascists.

If you could build up capital through enslavement and pillage, then why isn't Africa, the land of enslavement and pillage itself, the greatest center of world prosperity on Earth?  Why wasn't it that way before the arrival of the "hairy, stinky whites"?  Why didn't Cambodia become a shining example of western style capitalism when the Khmer Rouge took over?  They stole EVERYTHING and enslaved EVERYBODY.  According to you, this is how wealth is created.  Where's the wealth?

Christ, you are such a fucking racist.  You sit there and use the benefits of capitalism to decry it.  Go live in the forest and come back in four days and let us know how much better it is.

Christ, what the fuck did the Indians have to steal?  A few buffalo skins?  Yet apparently the whites stole that shit and turned it into what we have now.  I didn't know if you took a Buffalo skin, it would turn into a car in a hundred years.  AMAZING!  

Apparently, you think white people never worked for anything.  You can just steal whatever you want and become super rich with advanced technology popping out of your ass when you eat a native baby.

Sorry, you are the only racist here.  You throw around a bunch of epithets, and attribute the characteristics of a few to all.  That is the foundation of racism.  Go fuck yourself, faggot.

eureka's picture

RE "the Second world nation of Mexico, where I lived in for a year"

TBM - you obviously love yourself because of your accounting skills -

of your own ability to accumulate assets. 

Your view of man and the world is hierachical:

You are the shining incarnation of the triumph of acquisitive man.

You live in the "first world", whereas Aztec/Mexico is "second world".

You see Canada as "first world" - not because you got there first -

but because of your "superior" principles and cunning.

You swear repeatedly while you assert your superiority -

and your contempt for anyone who does not share your vision.

May I suggest you try deliver your diatribes to the mirror - just once?

tmosley's picture

What are you even talking about?  I am saying that Mexico now is better that Aztec then, and that I did NOT get my history from "the History Channel".  I observed and studied it first hand.  

I don't know where you get the idea that I think men are hierarchical.  Individuals are not, but government types are, in that some allow for better living conditions for the people within, while others provide worse conditions, and that one should judge those government types by their merits, ie to what extent have their people prospered over the long term?

I don't really know why you are suddenly talking about Canada.

My principles ARE superior.  This is demonstrable both logically and in practice.  Those peoples whom adhere to my principles become rich and powerful.  Those who do not become poor and irrelevant.  The US has abandoned any semblance they ever had of following the principles I, and others, have laid out, and we are suffering because of it. We are on the border of falling from the first world to the second, then to the third.

I have contempt for people who lie, people who steal, and people who murder.  I also have contempt for those who worship death.  You can see this in ALL of my posts.  I look at myself in the mirror every day.  I derive all that I do and say from first principles, something most fail to do, and in that failure, they allow injustice to go about the world masked and hidden from view.  I unmask these things, and am able to do so simply because I see the truth--that people owns themselves, and they can and do own property.  Those who fail to see that are destroyers, by action or inaction.

eureka's picture

RE Canada - I must have read opinions similar to yours, by a Canadian poster, and confused them with yours. My appologies.

Personally, I do not live to become rich and powerful; I live to learn and to share.

Sharing, to me, is not death worshipping, but rather fun.

I love life and people. To me, respecting their right to be as they wish - including being less productive if they so choose, does not make them "death-worshippers" or irrelevant to me.

I suppose my Christian, fellow-man-loving, practical, co-operational, win-win approach can be too transcendental if one places personal material acquisition and competition over love of one's neighbor. 

I wish you well and hope your possessions will make you happy.

However, I see no logic in belittle'ing those who love people more than money.

But of course, belittlement of others is yours freely to choose.

tmosley's picture

I didn't say you were a death worshipper.  That is just one of the classes of people that I fight against.

And material acquisition in a free market is the best and really only way to help anyone, because it forces you to make things that others can use, and drives down prices for everyone.

If you really want to understand economics, and how people should deal with each other to really and truly improve their living standards, I would suggest you read this:

Texas Gunslinger's picture

<comment removed by the administration>




downwiththebanks's picture



Spending a semester in Mexico as a 16 year old exchange student hardly makes you an expert, History Channel boy.

You are aware that at the time when the immaculate, incredible city of Tenochtitlan was discovered by the disease-ridden barbarians 100,000 women were being systematically burned in Europe, while Jews and Muslims were being expelled from the continent.

And, incidentally, Africa is STILL - as it has always been - a massive repository of wealth.  It just so happens that around the same time White Capital decided to poison América (after bringing back to Europe the potato, corn, tomatoes, etc. - food that fueled the 'industrial revolution'), it was just starting the slave trade.

But hey, I give White Capitalists credit:  nobody, after deciding that human beings were so much fodder for ME ME ME to acquire wealth, managed to use theft and genocide to such efficient ends.

If we've learned one thing in the 600 years it has been around:  nobody kills with the efficiency of White Capital. 

Kudos to them for that. 

tmosley's picture

I wasn't there as part of an exchange program.  I was in college at the time.  But hey, you feel free to keep hating any form of knowledge that goes against your bias.

Yeah, Tenochtitlan was a beautiful city.  Except for the temples that were stained with the blood, guts and gore of millions.  And my argument had nothing to do with the Spanish, who were brutish in their own way, and neither respected rights nor natural law.  It was not the 100-odd men that Cortez brought with him who threw down the Nauhatl, it was the tribes who rallied around that disruptive seed.  They would have done the same with any other disruption.  

LOL, if Africa's so great, why don't you go live there?  I'll even buy you a one way ticket to the Central African Republic.  Sure, nevermind that there was never any such thing as a white slaver, the whites ALWAYS, 100% bought their African slaves from African slave traders.  Africa was, and still is HELL.  There have been great civilizations there, including many that your dumb ass has probably never heard of (Axum being one of the most famous).

"No-one kills with the efficacy of white capital"?  I guess you must have forgotten all about Stalin's purges, or Mao's destruction of China, or any of the hundreds of millions killed by your pet form of government, Communism.  Here's a hint:  the senseless slaughter committed by all of the native American tribes and civilizations on each other should be included, though they aren't.  That would boost the number into the billions, more than likely.

Seriously.  Look at the world around you.  How is it worse off than before those evil capitalists came and smashed the systems of total slavery and squalor that existed before?

But then, like all Communists, you don't want to think of that.  You would rather blame the evils of the system that came before on Capitalism, even as Capitalism swept those evils away like a flood of wealth and prosperity.

Texas Gunslinger's picture

Just when I think Claven-mosely's posts have reached rock bottom, he breaks out the shovels and starts digging.

There is literally no end to this guy's idiocy.  It doesn't matter what the subject matter is, this guy never wastes an opportunity to make a moron of himself. Today has barely even begun and there is Claven-Mosely, straight out of the starting gate, flat on his face - it's barely 8am.  



Conrad Murray's picture

You are one creepy motherfucker. I see your retardation all over the goddamn place and haven't said anything until now, but you need to take your internet stalker shit somewhere the fuck else. It's seriously distrubing.

tmosley's picture

What is "wrong" about my post?  

You have nothing but ad hominem, and some script that makes a noise on your computer when I make a post.

As the above poster said--seriously creepy.

Edit: and here's an edit for your script to catch--you have ZERO credibility here, save perhaps among the most ignorant marxists to ever walk the Earth, like "Downwiththebanks" here.

I wonder how much money you spent developing that script specifically to try to discredit me?  lol, I must be pretty important to you, and a big roadblock to your plans.

Quixotic_Not's picture

The guy seriously comes off as some wannabe apparatchik who has gone total Ted Bundy after ODing on libtard koolaid...

This twit should have been IP banned on day 2.