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.
GoinFawr's picture

YOU ASSHOLES! RALPH FREAKING NADER has been staring you straight in the face incredulously for the last 4 goddamned elections (not to mention DECADES)!

Without even being POTUS: Freedom of Information Act, Clean Drinking Water Act, etc et fucking cetera.

I imagine he wouldn`t have lived long as Prez, but at least thousands of your soldiers might still be alive and helping rebuild your infrastructure with all the capital you saved not invading everybody and his dog on behalf of a buncha elitist right wing loonies and their oil companies, who then thanked you by shipping all your manufacturing (and the technology that made it possible) overseas.

Yah, you might have had to eat single payer health care, which, contrary to the duped Ronald Reaganites, is not `one size schmees schmee...`

A trillion a year sets a shitload of broken bones; hell, even 250 billion.

And if he made it past inauguration without having his head splattered all over the inside of his town car do you really think he would have allowed the banksters to fuck you as hard as they can for the last ten years? RN bailing out the banks? Yah right.

And NO he`s not a `Russialist`, he`s a dyed-in-the-wool Constitutional Republican for fuck`s sake, and those words actually mean something to him, which I see so many here on ZH claim to value too.

Rant off/ It just pisses me off when the guy doesn`t even get an honourable mention after forty years of service.

Reese Bobby's picture

Seatbelts were a good idea.  Ralph has been on a dry spell since then...

GoinFawr's picture

(throws up hands in air) Fine, ignore everything I wrote and every point I gave you. You made your fucking bed, I hope you enjoy lying in it.

Reese Bobby's picture

The majority of people on this site are against the 140 Country U.S. Empire.  But the last Presidential candidate I had any interest in was nutty Ross Perot. 

knukles's picture

"qsuisssssssssssssssssssssssssskkkkkkuk"
You hear that?  Listen to me, you hear that sound? 
"qsuisssssssssssssssssssssssssskkkkkkuk"
That's the sound of jobs being sucked out of Amrica with this free trade thingalmabob.  Listen!
"qsuisssssssssssssssssssssssssskkkkkkuk"

knukles's picture

The Economist called Ron Paul a "kook." 
Hmmmmmm
The Economist called...

Reese Bobby's picture

Fuck The Economist.  Bilderburg Ass-Wipes...

downwiththebanks's picture

A racist blowhard - yes.  

A kook.  Not so much.

downwiththebanks's picture

One thing we know is that Ron "JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY" Paul will talk and talk and talk and talk about anything (except 911, of course, where he defends Ashcroft's "alCIAda did it fantasy).

But words don't change his actions or his affiliations.

Strike Back's picture

Shit.  A new species of troll.

Strike Back's picture

No difference between the two.  Ron Paul is in a league of his own.

downwiththebanks's picture

Indeed.  There's ZERO difference between Ron "JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY Paul and Republican.

He exists to keep ZeroHedgers like you voting GOP.  Which, incidentally, makes you a lemming.

Reese Bobby's picture

You have half a point finally but you won't know what it is and it is muddled by your implied party bias in other comments anyway.  Anyone who thinks there is any difference between the two major political parties is completely missing the real problem in my opinion.  But I understand if it is too much for you to handle.

downwiththebanks's picture

 

Never voted Democrat.  Never voted Republican.

Funny thing:  I just never felt - even as an 18 year old - like being suckered by ambidextrous puppetmasters.

That said, I can see why Ron "JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY" Paul supporters are defensive about supporting such a group of hucksters as the GOP.  

I'd be defensive, too, if I were such an obvious sop.

Reese Bobby's picture

I have made a handsome living identifying bullshit.  I call bullshit on you.

AnAnonymous's picture

I have made a handsome living identifying bullshit.  I call bullshit on you.

 

US citizen way then as it starts by telling that somebody who did not vote for DEM/REP has a implied DEM/REP bias.

Moe Howard's picture

So being against aid to other countries makes a person a racist? Count me in too.

downwiththebanks's picture

Nope.  Being against 'aid' to other countries makes you clueless as to the true intention of that aid - White Imperialism.

It's sad to be a clueless 80 year old.

Someone should ask the little Bircher how a 50 story building can collapse by its own initiative.

tmosley's picture

Hmm, so foreign aid is white imperialism, and anyone wanting to stop it is racist.

Nice logic there.

If you think Ron Paul doesn't understand the concept of dependence, then you are the clueless one.

eureka's picture

U.S. "foreign aid" goes directly to tax-evading/non-tax-paying "U.S."-supra-national corporations. Nuance,tbm. Nuance. If possible.

tmosley's picture

Uhhh, ok...

So why is ending it bad, then?

Here's a hint:  I want to end it.

eureka's picture

That is clear. I want to end it too.  All I propose is full explanation of why - which is: 

U.S. "foreign aid" is taxpayer-sponsored bail-out of capital-collectivist corporations.

malalingua's picture

I want to end it too.  Here is another reason why from Dr. Ron Paul,  “Foreign aid is taking money from poor people in rich countries and giving it to rich people in poor countries,”

Shell Game's picture

Now, you've gone and muddied the waters of a perfectly irrational attack on Ron Paul..  ;-)

eureka's picture

That is clear. I want to end it too.  All I propose is full explanation of why - which is: 

U.S. "foreign aid" is taxpayer-sponsored bail-out of capital-collectivist corporations.

jaffi's picture

Ron Paul, being a libertarian (as shown from his philosophy, his stances, and his books), cannot be a racist, nor has he shown himself to be a racist.  Racism requires collectivism to exist.  Libertarianism is an individualist philosophy which denies collectivism, therefore it is entirely impossible for a true libertarian to be racist, because it would mean the support of a collectivist idea.  

zen0's picture

helping rebuild your infrastructure with all the capital you saved not invading everybody and his dog on behalf of a buncha elitist right wing loonies and their oil companies.

 

Sorry dude. Elitist Left wing Fascist loonies. That is, not laizzes faire classical liberal types. Who is sucking the government tit?. Lefties. Get it straight bro, before you embarrass yourself further.

GoinFawr's picture

Don't worry, my interest level in you and yours is dropping fast.

Unlike Ralph Nader, 'Elitist Left wing Fascist Loonies' are NOT Constitutional Republicans. But seriously, don't bother to address any of my points, just blurt out the first idiotic piece of rote that bubbles to the surface of your bullshit distended head.

I swear you people are so conditioned on certain subjects that when specific names/terms get mentioned you have a fucking switch that gets flipped and turns you into Kurt Vonnegut's dentist in "Mother Night".

scaleindependent's picture

zeno,

"Elitist Left wing Fascist loonies ,"

Stop mixing political metaphors,  you idiot.

pan-the-ist's picture

Half of these idiots will never understand fascism until they get kicked in the face with a size 12, the other half will be happy to have someone protect their wealth from the rioting socialists.

eureka's picture

Wow - judging from your language - and tmosley's as well - we could easily have our own little civil war here on zerohedge - despite all tmosley's talk about "natural law" and about how everybody should stop killing and stealing...

Is there really any purpose to all our ideological discussions - or should we just all get all our guns out and get at it until no man is standing and the world is truly peaceful?

Mad Cow's picture

It's just the way it is. While we tend to debate on top of the pyramid, we also tend to forget about its foundation.

The foundation is that ALL LIFE requires the death of something to sustain it. Thus is the curse of the physical dimension. No amount of ideas can can change that basic equation.

However, ignoring this and employing good old-fashioned cognitive dissonance, we can try to outsmart it, chase our own tail, maybe even eat it, and thus make life in the physical realm "interesting."

cosmictrainwreck's picture

"Who is sucking the government tit?" Lefties. Idiot. Moron. Pinhead. Imbicile. Man, are you ever somebody's tool. The correct answer IS: everybody [most present company exlcuded]. Try this one on: from the richest, slimy, greedy, dick-head WallSkreet stooge down to the single mom on foodstamps. Got nothin' to do with left-right-middle. Matter of fact, your beloved "righties" have sucked billions more (totally & per capita) than all the rest combined. Ya shit-for-brains, know-it-all cretin. Open yer fuckin' eyes.

pan-the-ist's picture

These fools only call corporate welfare recipients socialist because Glen Beck has generalized the term 'socialist' in their minds to mean any recipient of tax money/government debt.  It is an easy trick to pull, and most people are too unprepared see it coming.

Cathartes Aura's picture

. . . which is doubly hilarious when one remembers Mr. Beck's membership in that socialist cult of Mormons - they ARE their own little welfare state, between tithing and the Bishop's food banks.

busy little bee-hives.

Yen Cross's picture

  You live? YEN CROSS  Nice work.

GoinFawr's picture

Nice of you to drop by YC.

80.50, 82, 80.25. So, are you cross with the yen? Let me guess: you were hedged, not leveraged. No wait: you troughed and peaked, went flat then short and raked it all in all ways as always, miracled the whole thing, right?

Yen Cross's picture

  I never forget (HONEST) People.

    I have your back until my last dying BREATH.     YENCROSS

aerojet's picture

Unsafe at Any Speed was just a hit piece.  That's the problem with all those guys--they deal in "issues" which are not real life.  Today's cars are expensive, weighted down piles of techno-crap because there are so many damn airbags stuffed everywhere. It was all someone's corporate agenda and had nothing to do with safety or the needs of regular people.