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.
pan-the-ist's picture

So, you would take a way the right of a wealthy person to own and operate multiple businesses? Or to sit on the boards of multiple businesses that person has a large stake in?

Founders Keeper's picture

Hi Pan.

Check into US antitrust laws. That should answer your questions.

 

tmosley's picture

No, you can't restrict ANY form of free association, whoever it is doing the associating.

However, unions ARE NOT the owners of the businesses they work for.  They CAN NOT force the owners to require that new workers join their organization.  Nor can they loiter or destroy property if their entire organization is fired by those who own those businesses (for ANY reason they want, including simply belonging to the organization).

There are very clear boundaries to the behavior of individuals in society that are dictated by the principles of self ownership and ownership of property (ie NATURAL LAW).  If legislation does not respect this, then the system will fall.

Founders Keeper's picture

 

[No, you can't restrict ANY form of free association, whoever it is doing the associating.]---tmosely

Hi mosely.

We disagree. IMO, No public sector Unions.

Private sector Unions have recourse for grievances, the leverage of the market place against management/owners. The public sector employees have no such leverage.

Yes, public sector employees must have recourse for grievances, and may do so as a group or in "association." Their recourse however is the public ballot box. 

Does the US Navy have a Union? Come on mosely, don't be silly.

 

tmosley's picture

Understand that all people have the right to associate with as they like.

In an ideal system, public unions would not exist, simply because there would be no public employees.  That is the source of the problem here.

Governments, as entities that deny the rights of others, do not have rights.

Founders Keeper's picture

 

 

 

By the way. Good post upstairs about the Aztecs.

Funny how the libs insist all Native Americans lived in a state of peaceful, non-violent, democratic utopia.

To the article at large. I submit our Founders would be appalled at today's ratio of rich vs poor.

For the Marxists however, this works to their advantage.

 

Shell Game's picture

To the article at large. I submit our Founders would be appalled at today's ratio of rich vs poor.

For the Marxists however, this works to their advantage.

Well said, a so true on all counts.

eureka's picture

Oh, so native violence justified U.S. expansionist, Manifest Destiny violence?

Founders Keeper's picture

 

 

 

 

Hi eureka.

I think you missed my point above.

Nevertheless, I'll speak directly to your point. Treatment of the native American populations on a whole by US authorities was unfair at best and atrocious at worst. Our nation's history in this regard is like an open wound for which much healing is required.

As for our conquering all land from coast to coast?  Yeah, I'm good with that.

 

eureka's picture

How can government without government employees protect your property rights?

tmosley's picture

How can government protect them now?

I had a tire stolen off of my car in a hotel parking lot.  Someone got the license plate number of the guy that did it.  The police never did anything.  There are a million stories like that one.

Individuals do a much better job of defending their own property rights, and can do so without government interference, and did so for many years right here in this very nation.  Private security was cheap and effective.  Much more so than today's official police, even with unlimited power and jack-boots.

toxic8's picture

the government is not there to protect you (the citizen).

they are there to serve and protect their interests, mainly themselves and those

in power aka the corporate/government revolving door oligarchy.

Yen Cross's picture

  Red Pill, you don't need to answer for yourself. I have your back!!!

US Uncut's picture

Hmmm, not according to Mish and his gang. At first they went after public unions but now it's pretty much all unions. He seems to have lost his way and seems to think the little people are the cause and fault of this entire mess. He seems to have little or no passion and anger for the bankers and politicians.... that is reserved for people working a basic 8-5 job. It's gotten pathetic. 

downwiththebanks's picture

That's because he's a feckless tool who has never worked a day in his life.

Oh regional Indian's picture

What, pray is an unnatural power tmos?
An oxymoron...
But Unions, look at the word itself. Union between who? Management and worker? Or is it a worker collective? seriously, think about that, names matter. if you clarify that for yourself...

ORI

http://aadivaahan.wordpress.com/2011/05/26/the-video-trailer/

goldsaver's picture

Unnatural power is the power obtained by the use or threatened use of force. Whether this force is government guns or union billy clubs is force non the less. Natural law is law that exists because of the nature of the object (water is liquid therefore is wet). No government or gang dictate was required to make it so.

Unions, as used in this discussion, refer to workers joining forces against a common foe, management. The mere existence of unions make them, bu their nature, a gang based on force. Can this be a good thing? In limited instances, yes. When an employer uses force first to impose involuntary work conditions on the work force a counter balancing force is necessary for self defense.

But that is not what unions do. Unions are a gang or tribe that use the threat of force to impose conditions in the trade of labor between employer and employee. In effect, they use the government to artificially increase the price of the labor. The obvious result is that they price themselves out of the market by bankrupting the company they work for.

In the auto industries, the only reason that they have not yet killed the host, is because they shifted the cost of their demands into the public coffers. In effect, all US taxpayers subsidize the cost of union labor since th host can no longer do so.

The nest logical step is complete nationalisation. To shift all the costs to the public. That does not change the model, it just shifts the host form the industry to the populace.

Ghostbusters's picture

"There are now only 5 nations on the world left without a Rothschild controlled central bank: Iran; North Korea; Sudan; Cuba; and Libya."

Afghanistan and Iraq recently found "God," and their central bank.

http://www.lookingglassnews.org/viewcommentary.php?storyid=121

Have you all heard about the Western Play Palace in Iraq: 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,476464,00.html

Central Bankers think they are "God" and in this reality they are.  Here's to putting the fear of "God" back in them. 

midtowng's picture

Mish is an a**hole. Anyone with an ounce of sense knows that workers, if they bargain alone, don't have the same leverage and power than if they bargain together. Free trade with 3rd world countries and the destruction of unions means that the middle class will continue to vanish. Eventually we will have a two class society - the very wealthy and the poor - and no one inbetween. And then we will wonder why our democracy has been gutted like our economy.

Texas Gunslinger's picture

Just another chart to be filed away in the "George Bush was the worst president in American history" folder.

I'm curious what percentage of the ZHeeple voted for Bush.  Probably 75% or more.  lol

 

 

Al Gorerhythm's picture

Who will be the next Messiah/Mssiah? They'll save you.

Left, right, left, right, left, right; HALT.

Reese Bobby's picture

After 5 weeks the above poster weighs in with a Republicans are different than Democrats post.  Read and learn newbie becasue as of now you are sheeple.  ZH can rehabilitate you...

Husk-Erzulie's picture

Never voted for shrub, saw the bummer coming from a mile away (reminded me of Carlos Menem).  Next up Bummer v Sarah... whoo lordy.  That's a Brehzinski creation and A Kissinger creation by the way (in case you hadn't noticed, Sarah has kissed the ring and will be the GOP candidate hard as that is to believe) The manipulation is winding up and it will be fucking brilliant, a tour de force, old man Henry at the top of his game, history in the making.

Reese Bobby's picture

And watching Congress in action is the darkest of comedy.  I consider it a good day in Washington when Boehner doesn't cry and Maxine Waters isn't allowed to talk...

downwiththebanks's picture

Maxine Waters understands the world far better than the racist ass clown Ron "John Birch Society" Paul.

cramers_tears's picture

Go read "End the Fed"

Maxine "UnitedOne Bank" Waters in true form.  http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503983_162-6241870-503983.html

And I didn't think I ws going to laugh today!

downwiththebanks's picture

One thing we've ALL come to learn is that Ron "JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY" Paul LOVES words.  

In fact, I can think of only one thing he's more full of than words.

"Just shut up and vote GOP asshole!" cry those 'contrarian' ZeroHedge apologists.

tmosley's picture

You are too ignorant for words.

Ron Paul is literally the only Republican I would vote for.  Otherwise, it's all third party.

And funny how you are calling him racist, while your own posts here have been incredibly racist.  Ron Paul is the antithesis of racist.  He is an individualist.  Some other people wrote some things and signed his name to them after he left politics to deliver babies.  That doesn't make those words his.  Only in the mind of a collectivist, where all whites are the same, and are responsible for the actions of others, is that so.

eureka's picture

tbmosley - Canada is really boring, huh? Good thing you have the US collectivists next door to enlighten.

tmosley's picture

What on EARTH are you talking about?

I don't live in Canada.  What gave you that impression?  Or do you have me confused with someone else?

Bay of Pigs's picture

And what do you "love" aside of character assassination?

Another clown playing the race card.

downwiththebanks's picture

You play the Race Card every day, White Boy.

I voted Cynthia McKinney in 2008 and Nader the 3 previous elections.

nmewn's picture

"I voted Cynthia McKinney in 2008..."

ROTFLMAO!!!

downwiththebanks's picture

Unlike some geriatric blowhards who affiliates himself with the JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY, at least C-Mac can ask a fucking question.

I wonder if Rummy was ROTFLMAO here:

Cynthia McKinney takes on Donald Rumsfeld

What has Ron "JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY" Paul done for Palestine?

FrankDrakman's picture

What has Ron "JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY" Paul done for Palestine?

Just exactly what he's supposed to do - sweet f-a. Where, in the US Constitution or the oath taken as a member of the House, does it say that you have to "do something" for a bunch of murderous, lying scumbags half way around the world?

 

tmosley's picture

You LOOOOVE Democrats and pseudo-Democrats.  As if Nader would change anything.

That IS hilarious.

The question is, how do you like Obama?  He's half African, which must mean he is perfect, happy, selfless, and magical in every way.  But he's also half Irish, which must mean he is evil, disgusting, selfish, hairy, and murderous.

downwiththebanks's picture

Never voted Democrat.  The 2-party system is the problem, so I don't support it.

Unlike you, who votes GOP.   It's probably natural law, in your view, that the 2-party system exists forever.

tmosley's picture

You are extremely ignorant, and clearly not a reader.

I have never voted for a Republican during an election, though did vote for Ron Paul during the Republican primary.  I vote libertarian or constitution party in general elections.

Your problem is you make baseless assumptions about EVERYONE.

Conrad Murray's picture

Go back to playing in the tard pool with the glp faggots where you belong.

Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

There is no left and there is no right there is only up and down.  Down with politicians and up with the people.

eureka's picture

Clearly: tbmosley - He, is God.

A.W.E.S.O.M.-O 4000's picture

I agree. But I think our boy Barry is working on being a close second

Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

Wilson started the ponzi, went to war, and looted the Treasurie.  Hoover had not a clue what to do.  FDR had to steal America's gold to get his little ponzi going, and then went to war.   Truman bombed the shit out of a country that had been desperately losing the war.  Eisenhower acted like he did not know that the Complex by proxie from the banking industry was hijacking the system.  Kennedy did not act swiftly enough.  Johnson  spent money moving blacks to industrial waste dumps, and he continued war.  Nixon took the world off of the gold standard and pissed OPEC off.  Ford was an idiot (enough said).  Carter expanded the military industrial complex times ten.  Reagan officially handed the keys over to the power hungry right, and continued war spending.  Bush went to war, and had poor economic policy considering he wanted NAFTA and he raised rates before an election year, throwing the election (it was the rate rise, stupid).  Clinton ran NAFTA through showing he was more right than a centrist, officially handing the democratic keys to the power hungry, and he did not regulate finance, leading to the dotcom crash.  Bush went to war and went to war again.  Obama has now continued all these policies collectively.  Worse?  Who cares.

Moe Howard's picture

I can disagree on several points you made. You should move beyond a surface reading of history, its a trap.

knowless's picture

exactly.

kill the paradigm.

only fools vote for a non-candidate,

queue debate on voting lesser of two evils/the irrelivancy of voting.

 

TGS, you have merit, why do you waste it on partisanship like this?

realitybiter's picture

W sucked and we all know it.  What would have the chart looked like under Gore?  Gore was all over the China migration of manufacturing, which explains most of this.  W inherited the unsustainable dotcom boom and its vacuum aftermath.  What would have Gore done?  I guess it would have been better to have overpriced solar panels everywhere rather than granite countertops, but I still think Gore would have had his own set of problems.  I doubt he would have changed economic policy much since it was the same crew that Clinton had.

I think the dotcom boom misallocated a ton of capital that gave quite an illusion of wealth -like real estate...At least the homes are still there....  

If Clinton were genius he would have seized the opportunity and done a massive governmental secondary and stuffed the coffers.  Instead, the "wealth" largely got squandered and obligated to the future.  

W sucked, but pinning it all on him is a monster mistake and dooms you to fail in the future.

What about our current Prez and the promise of jobs with the bailout that originally started way back with W and has gotten bigger and bigger with BO?  Can we pull up those charts?  W, BO, Gore, Clinton...it and they are all BS.