3 ms·

The topmost comment (for me right now) says income levels for workers were flat while corporate profits were skyrocketing based on data from an article in 2011.

bufordsharkley 10y ago
Which isn't really an alternate hypothesis from the four discussed in the piece: > Economists are therefore scrambling to explain the change. There are, by my count, now four main potential explanations for the mysterious slide in labor's share. These are: 1) China, 2) robots, 3) monopolies and 4) landlords. ...but rather an effect. (Labor's return is declining, so of course a greater share goes to corporations.)
- simonh 10y ago
  Specifically, to capital intensive corporations.
  - ThrustVectoring 10y ago
    Intensification in general is a good enough explanation. Straightforward economic operations get replaced with complex ones, providing more places to siphon off output. I mean, labor's share in a hunter-gatherer society was 100%. There's little a capitalist can do to grab a share of the nuts picked up off the ground and eaten. There's a lot folks can do to grab a share of the logistics involved in mechanized farming of large plots of land and shipping the produce to local markets.
    - bufordsharkley 10y ago
      An open question is how much the transition to the "knowledge economy" is changing how we work, and how we build our communities. Communities built solely around manufacturing are suffering today, while we see soaring demand for our dense urban areas (which they struggle to keep up with). This can be seen as the next progression from hunter gatherer, to agricultural, to manufacturing-centered cities. Should we expect this to continue, or will the knowledge economy come to smaller cities, too? Will VR and telecommuting affect this trend?
      - killjoywashere 10y ago
        > Should we expect this to continue I think the answer is self-evident: the inland cites are undergoing apoptosis by way of opioid suicides and migration to the coasts as inland economic nutrients dwindle away. Building new cities on the coasts of Africa might be the best way to go.

bufordsharkley 10y ago

Which isn't really an alternate hypothesis from the four discussed in the piece: > Economists are therefore scrambling to explain the change. There are, by my count, now four main potential explanations for the mysterious slide in labor's share. These are: 1) China, 2) robots, 3) monopolies and 4) landlords. ...but rather an effect. (Labor's return is declining, so of course a greater share goes to corporations.)

simonh 10y ago
Specifically, to capital intensive corporations.
- ThrustVectoring 10y ago
  Intensification in general is a good enough explanation. Straightforward economic operations get replaced with complex ones, providing more places to siphon off output. I mean, labor's share in a hunter-gatherer society was 100%. There's little a capitalist can do to grab a share of the nuts picked up off the ground and eaten. There's a lot folks can do to grab a share of the logistics involved in mechanized farming of large plots of land and shipping the produce to local markets.
  - bufordsharkley 10y ago
    An open question is how much the transition to the "knowledge economy" is changing how we work, and how we build our communities. Communities built solely around manufacturing are suffering today, while we see soaring demand for our dense urban areas (which they struggle to keep up with). This can be seen as the next progression from hunter gatherer, to agricultural, to manufacturing-centered cities. Should we expect this to continue, or will the knowledge economy come to smaller cities, too? Will VR and telecommuting affect this trend?
    - killjoywashere 10y ago
      > Should we expect this to continue I think the answer is self-evident: the inland cites are undergoing apoptosis by way of opioid suicides and migration to the coasts as inland economic nutrients dwindle away. Building new cities on the coasts of Africa might be the best way to go.