Posts Tagged ‘growth’

margulies

Special mention

4855  Bennett editorial cartoon

labor share

They keep promising, ever since the recovery from the Great Recession started more than eight years ago, that the share of national income going to American workers will finally begin to increase. But it’s not.

Sure, profits continue to rise. And so is the stock market. But not what workers receive.

In fact, as is clear from the magnified section of the chart above, the labor share has actually been declining in recent quarters—even as the unemployment rate has fallen about as far as it’s going to go.*

But you don’t have to believe me. Even the Wall Street Journal has noticed this trend.

Labor’s share of domestic income has been declining since 1970 and has barely recovered in this expansion from lows last seen when the U.S. was pulling out of the Great Depression.

Employee pay and benefits as a percentage of gross domestic income fell to 52.7% in last year’s third quarter, for the fourth straight quarterly decline, according to data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. It was as high as 59% in 1970 and 57% in 2001. If workers were commanding as much of domestic income as they did in 2001, they’d have nearly $800 billion more in their pockets, or $5,100 per employed American.

While the labor share has fallen, business profits are on the rise. Income of corporations, proprietorships, landlords and other businesses has climbed from less than 12% of gross domestic income in the 1980s to more than 20%.

It’s time then to call out the hollowness of the promises that economic growth and low unemployment will lead to improvements for the nation’s workers. Clearly, both economists and politicians, conservatives as well as liberals, continue to make such pledges.

But those promises are as empty as hell—because, as the king’s son once declared, “all the devils are here.”

 

 

*And, as I explained back in 2017, the situation may be even worse for workers than the official numbers capture. That’s because the “labor share” doesn’t give an accurate picture of the “workers’ share” of national income—for two reasons: First, the labor share (as calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics) includes both employee compensation and the labor compensation of proprietors (and thus a portion, minus the capital share, of the income going to proprietors). Second, the labor share does not account for inequality between the different groups who receive what is officially measured as labor compensation. Thus, the compensation of a highly paid CEO and a low-wage worker are both included in the labor share.

600_216311

Special mention

600_216500  1007 Boyertoon

600_215870

Special mention

4818  dHSZ02z

us_economy_growth_to_4_1___marian_kamensky_h7LYpBD

Special mention

600_214668  Fewer Yemeni Children Would Die if Trump Were to Call them Dogs

trump slump

Marketplace’s Kai Ryssdal is no class warrior. Far from it. But after Donald Trump’s chief economic adviser Larry Kudlow spent considerable time during a recent interview celebrating the latest statistics about economic growth, jobs, and wages and minimizing the effects of the trade tariffs, Ryssdal was encouraged to challenge him:

Ryssdal: Look, sir, really with all respect that’s easy for you to say sitting here on the second floor of the West Wing of the White House.

Kudlow: Now, don’t class warfare me or anything like that.

OK, let’s not class warfare him. Let’s just do some simple calculations. In June, hourly wages (for production and nonsupervisory workers in the private sector) rose at an annual rate of 2.7 percent. Prices (as measured by the Consumer Price Index) rose at an annual rate of 2.8 percent. That means real wages—workers’ purchasing power—actually declined, by 0.1 percent.

As is clear from the chart above, even as hourly wages (the grey line) have been growing by 2.2 to 2.7 percent since Trump was inaugurated, inflation (the red line) has also been rising, by 2.5 to 2.8 percent. The result is that the rate of growth of real wages (the blue line), which started in negative territory, is still in negative.

So, a year and a half after Trump took office, lots of conventional economic numbers look good: GDP growth, corporate profits, the stock market, the unemployment rate, and so on all point in a positive direction. Now, it’s a stretch to call it the Trump Bump, since it’s basically a continuation of the recovery that preceded his election. But we can let Trump and Kudlow revel in those numbers, which improve the fortunes of a small group of large corporations and wealthy individuals at the top.

However, it’s the rate of growth of real wages that affects the majority of Americans—and it indicates what can only be called a Trump Slump.

Put the two together and it sounds like class warfare to me. And it’s being directed not at but from the West Wing of the West House.

 

 

600_213809

Special mention

Billbama