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.
blunderdog's picture

You might be able to understand what I'm saying better if you stuck to what I'm saying, and stopped inserting whatever bogeymen you want to swing at.

I'm an anarchist.  I don't support the government's efforts to protect your property.  I *advocate* individuals bettering their own local environment in order to reduce the significance and power of the government.

We've had this little talk before. 

Now tell us again how much you hate Pelosi...

nmewn's picture

"You might be able to understand what I'm saying better if you stuck to what I'm saying, and stopped inserting whatever bogeymen you want to swing at."

I might find you more coherent if you stuck with one position.

"I'm an anarchist...We've had this little talk before."

Horseshit, you're not an anarchist...but yes we have had a little chat before, about many things. Your elitism comes bleeding through on just about every post.

It may be "politically fashionable" to call ones self an anarchist as of late, but you're damn sure not or you would have the same reaction I hadto government coming into the kitchens of NYC restaurants and telling them what ingredients and how much of them to put into I'm alling BS all over that.

You agreed (or at least condoned) with the state doing this and fining the ones who did not comply...I was vehemently against the state doing were not. An anarchist would never support/condone this aggression against a private enterprise.

I can sit by and let downwithbanks throw his meaningless darts around because his posts have a value that is something less than zero...but with you I will not.

Explain how the state doing this (and you turning a blind eye) comports with you being an anarchist?

"Now tell us again how much you hate Pelosi..."

She's fucking stupid, what more is there to say or do than to heap the derision on her that she so richly deserves?

You sticking up for Nana now Mr. Anarchist and her insider trading info? ;-)

blunderdog's picture

I was vehemently against the state doing were not. An anarchist would never support/condone this aggression against a private enterprise.

I'm opposed to it.  It's just not that important.

If you stop looking for a fight, you might GET SOMEWHERE.  Not everyone who agrees with some (or even most) of your beliefs is going to have exactly the same set of priorities you have.  We are *different* people, lad.  Honestly, you mostly come across as a ranting infant with anyone who doesn't agree with absolutely everything you say.

I know you're angry, so maybe this'll help:

nmewn's picture

You oppose it but think it unimportant to take a stand a little food tyranny is perfectly fine but a "collective" economic model is worth a determined rant...sure, ok.

I see your consumed with more childish nonsense aimed in my direction so I guess we're done here blunder...quite the elitist bed side manner you have there Doc, try not to suffocate your next patient with it so you'll have more returning patients. 


blunderdog's picture

You get as you give.  It's natural law.

nmewn's picture

I'll take that...over whatever "fashion plate anarchism" you're attempting to peddle here with me.

You're going to admit (openly) you're not a true anarchist at some point blunder. Simply because you haven't thought it through.

Anarchism requires a society of responsible people. Which is, oddly enough, exactly what you accuse me & others of not being, though we are.

So, retreat back to your childish cartoons on Youtube and let me know if you come up with anymore pixie dust & unicorns regarding this simple fact about your fellow man ;-)

blunderdog's picture

I'm totally lost as to your point.  If you spent a quarter as much time expressing your ideas as you spent telling me what I believe, we might have a real discussion.

I have found most people are responsible, and are more than willing to do the right thing--in fact, they're actually MOTIVATED to do so.  The ones who don't want to do anything will generally stay out of the way of those who do, because it's easier to follow than to confront leaders. 

Anarchist society doesn't require *everyone* to be responsible.  Those who are irresponsible just don't do very well.  A lot of the structures we've constructed in today's society are intended to permit irresponsible people to ascend to the highest levels of wealth and/or political power.

That's not doing us any favors.

nmewn's picture

"A lot of the structures we've constructed in today's society are intended to permit irresponsible people to ascend to the highest levels of wealth and/or political power."

Finally ;-)

So, what do we do with the corporate welfare mavens AND the generational EBT card holders infecting the host under anarchism?

This is a serious question...irresponsibility is to be punished, absolved or promoted?

blunderdog's picture

Guess we'll find out.  Just do your part.  Stop paying taxes.  Stop obeying government ordinances.  Stop calling the cops.  And most important, stop worrying about all that bullshit.

"They" are really not going to come for you, and as soon as 20% of the population is in the same boat we're in, things will change very dramatically and very rapidly.  Embrace the change.

You really don't have to worry about it--anyone with any sense sees this "empire" stage of US history is coming to an end.  It's just a question of whether you're out in front of the collapse or trying to keep up with it.

nmewn's picture

Nice evasion of the question at hand. No sense in being pinned down with minor details involving Youtube, pixie dust & unicorns ;-)

You will be comforted to know I worry about nothing...I fear nothing or no one.

I am concerned about those who have not thought through the implications of what they preach as it has ramifications on all at some point.

And you shouldn't concern or worry yourself with what "part" I might play (if any) will be done as it always has been done...looking after what is dear to me, you should take care of yourself and yours.


blunderdog's picture

It's not an evasion of your question at all.  I'm starting to get the impression you're kinda stupid.

When government cannot sustain itself, there ARE NO EBT holders or corporate bailouts.  Thus if you want to eliminate these horrible crimes and abuses, there's nothing to do but eliminate the government.

You ask ME how you should treat people based on what you consider their past crimes?  Do what you like.  It's your problem, not mine.  Revenge doesn't interest me.

nmewn's picture

"It's not an evasion of your question at all."

Yes it was. To a question of what would we do with irresponsible people under an anarchist system you replied in essence;

"Guess we'll find out." and launched into how this system is coming to an end.

Fine, helluva system because it isn't a system at all. No law to hold a check on the powerful and step over the beggars in the street. Perfect...fucking nirvana...LOL!!!

"You ask ME how you should treat people based on what you consider their past crimes?"

I said nothing about crimes in that passage, the record shows it, you are seeing things that are not there...I'm beginning to suspect your sanity. your utopia there is no written law to go by, so there are no crimes or police (the state) or court (the state) or prosecutors (the state) or defense (the citizen) or jails (the state)...because no one pays for them to be in existence! If they did, that would imply some form of government wouldn't it?...elected or appointed.

Anarchy is fine on a small scale of responsible people...but 310 million people?...this is going to evolve into some sort of weird eugenics experiment conducted from a faculty lounge somewhere by your elitist thought process...I want no part of it, you're now classified by me as clinically insane doctor, it is you who are stupid.


blunderdog's picture

what would we do with irresponsible people under an anarchist system

You don't "do anything" with people.  They are their own problem, not yours.  You don't get to be boss of them.  Derp derp.

I'll do my best to ignore you from now on.  You're just an asshole.

nmewn's picture

Works for me, you're an idiot who can't think past the end of his nose.

GoinFawr's picture

blunderdog: excellent answer.
nmnewmnn: define `poor` now.

knowless's picture

poor is those who have no opportunity to find(earn) food without government assistance. those that are kept in a perpetual state of basic want so as to exploit for labor purposes.

muddied by social programs, but once the debt based economy collapses, it will be obvious who the "poor" are.

generally it has to do with the inability to acquire a skill, but this can easily be manufactured by constricting the labor market while social programming extols the virtues of fertility and motherhood so as to keep the birth rate high enough to keep the poor hungry.

poor=those priced out of entry level jobs/meaningful education by excessive birth rates.

falak pema's picture

don't ask a hound dog to miaule like a definition only a pussy man is he is not worth thinking about...look up to those above and you'll see the blue sky...look down and you'll see the black hole of human failure...Jesus should never have been born in this world of the uber alles breed. Our souls are the image of our dreams...but that's an immaterialist thought and buys no PMs.

knowless's picture

it all relies on the mutual consensus of reality and acceptable behavior.

personal perspective is not the judge of objective reality, except through their interlocked existance/dependance.

the sky and pit are only through the lens of the individuals perspective, this cannot be expanded to the whole of humanity as a general principal.

although theoretically i agree with you, i can't put it into practice without the acceptane of a reality based on mutual acceptance(fact).

i would spell it miaowl, but what does the difference matter if we hear the same sound?

nmewn's picture

Anyone who thinks they are "entitled" to someone elses labor is poor in more ways than one.

blunderdog's picture

In the USA, those people are "landlords" and "shareholders."

nmewn's picture

I was thinking EBT cards.

blunderdog's picture

I know, I'm just pointing out that you apply your definitions pretty selectively.

nmewn's picture

I feel the same way about all government subsidation...from solar panels to oil companies.

You clearly only see what you want to see and dislike being challenged on what you ignore right in front of you.

blunderdog's picture

If you really feel that way, join with the anarchists.  You don't FIGHT government.

You IGNORE it.

snowball777's picture

Rich: mortgage, private school tuition, and caviar covered by coupon payments alone.


GoinFawr's picture

"Free for those who can afford it, very expensive for those who can't."

thedrickster's picture

They can't and won't define rich, methinks they actually mean anyone well off enough not to be dependent.

I have met the enemy.

Quixotic_Not's picture

Don't forget ol' Ronnie Raygun signing Amnesty for illegals in 1986 - Treason reload!

Ya all did know that FDR was Ronnie's hero, and that he started-out a (D) politeer, didn't ya?

Seems even today the hoodwinked know no better:

Actual Reagan numbers FYI:

California increased spending by 112% in eight years

Fed increased spending by 80%, debt by 187% and deficits by 112%.


Of course, Dumya & O-Blah-Blah make his efforts to loot for his bankster/politeer masters pale by comparison...

ISEEIT's picture

Are you in school still? You clearly are as bright as a burned out bulb. Keep going for as long as they pay you if your soul can stomach it but at some point the bullshit is going to bite you back.

GeorgeHayduke's picture

Reagan let the Military Industrial Banksters take over and that was the beginning of the end. It's when wealth began trickling upward and that rate has increased ever since. Sure, they gave us a few bubbles to help build up those 401 K and pensions plans to act as a hidden cash reserve for future financial scams.

Yes, ALL presidents in recent times, both Dems and Repubs, have been scumbags and shills for the banksters, etc... However, Reagan was when the scam took it's strongest hold while the sheople voluntarily lined up for slaughter thanks to The Great Communicator.

IdioTsincracY's picture


The wealth never trickled up ....

it was pumped at warp speed all the way to the top ...... that's performance right there!

The problem was that the stupid marxists stopped it from trickling down ... you know!?!

GeorgeHayduke's picture

Oops, my mistake! You are correct. I was just trying to take it easy for the Reagan disciples that seem to be lurking around everywhere.

ISEEIT's picture

Hey Valerie,

Go talk to the hand cause the people aren't listen'.

Go find your "genius" (he's on the golf course again, trying to figure out why the ball just won't respect his superiority).

Blah, Blah your bullshit up someone elses ass.

zaknick's picture

Reagan was their shiny boy in Holly-wood during Mccarthyist persecution. When he confronted them, they almost killed him. Bush and the bankster gang where the real power and they did more than just that to this country.

Reese Bobby's picture

You are all "retards" (Hangover pronunciation).

What the fuck do Presidents have to do with anything compared to the Bank Cartel that controls our money supply and Government.

Johnson-Nixon-Carter-Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama = no difference.

FreeNewEnergy's picture

Beg to differ. Ronnie was extensively groomed by GE.

It's well documented. There are other links, articles. 

Hope that helps.

Reese Bobby's picture

It helps me understand you have learned nothing after 6 weeks at ZH.

Good luck with that winning candidate you volunteer for in 2012!

Crassus's picture

True, Reagan was GE's spokesman until he came out against the TVA calling it socialism. GE fired him. There's socialism then there's, socialism.

Quixotic_Not's picture

I thought he (O-Blah-Blah) was gonna spread the wealth around.

He did you twit! To his banksters buddies and his politeer peers!

Jokes on you, Joe!

*Change You Can Bleed In*

Caviar Emptor's picture

No...depression era lack of wage growth has nothing to do with the bad economy!

Krugman sez it's because we didn't have enough stimulus and we're doing a 1937! 

Maybe if we dole out another few trillion to Wall Street and a few other pet projects, we can't miss! It'll be party on all over again! 



TheGoodDoctor's picture

It will only get worse as inflation increases. Wages have remained flat since 1970. With the costs of housing, education and health care keep going up like crazy. When is the reset button going to be pushed?

Quixotic_Not's picture

'MeriKans couldn't even find the button, no less possess the balls the actually pull it!

Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth. ~ George Washington


No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms...The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. ~ Thomas Jefferson


No more patriots...

baby_BLYTHE's picture

Amen. I have read almost every word written by the founders. An amazing revolution; indeed!

ISEEIT's picture

No way that is actually you, good taste in a pic though!

Vendetta's picture

its auto-triggered by the weight of corruption pressed against it.

Azannoth's picture

Does this account for the millions of illegals, or is their manual labour not counted ?