The laboring labor share of income: the "miracle" ends.
After acknowledging a number of difficulties associated with measuring the U.S. labor share of income, Armenter presents three alternative measures that attempt to deal with one particular difficulty: what economists call proprietor's income, the income of self-employed individuals working either as sole proprietors or in partnerships. The problem with proprietor's income is that, although the self-employed earn both labor income and capital income, there is no need for them to distinguish between the two, so their records do not reflect the difference. Therefore, economists struggle to decompose proprietor's income into how much is labor income and how much is capital income--ergo the three alternative measures. The main measure, developed by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), goes to great lengths to disentangle proprietor's income into its labor and capital components. The result is the BLS headline labor income share, a trend line that readily shows the labor share's steady behavior at about 62 percent from 1950 to 2001 and falloff from then on. An alternative measure, formulated to take account of a shift in 2001 in the way BLS splits proprietor's income, shows that half of the drop in the headline labor income share is due to that very shift. The other half of the drop is real, however, and like the overall trend, the alternative measure's labor share of income declined after 2000. Finally, the third alternative measure ignores proprietor's income altogether. Armenter shows that this measure, too, exhibits a stable trend from 1950 to about 2001 and then drops off significantly.
Following a discussion showing that the chief culprit in ending the "bit of a miracle" in 2001 was wage stagnation in the manufacturing industry, Armenter takes up the question of what the "ultimate cause" is behind the decline of the U.S. labor share of income. Conceding that "economists have several hypotheses but no definite answer yet," he cites the three leading hypotheses purporting to explain the decline.
First, there is the hypothesis of capital deepening: technological innovations of various kinds produce better and cheaper equipment--robots, ATM machines, powerful software--that replaces workers and redistributes income from labor to capital. But this hypothesis is challenged by a logical consequence of the combination of economic theory and empirical fact: even when innovation replaces workers with equipment, the remaining workers should be more productive; that is, innovation accelerates labor productivity rather than making wages stagnate. But this is not what happened in the manufacturing sector over the period examined.
Second is the hypothesis of inequality. According to this hypothesis, technological innovation augments productivity more for highly skilled workers than for low-skilled workers, making the low-skilled workers redundant and thereby dispensable. As a result, wage inequality between workers increases. Consequently, the capital share of income increases and the labor share decreases. The principal challenge to this hypothesis is that empirical evidence appears to show that the rise in wage inequality--particularly the increase in top wages--has actually sustained the labor share, not diminished it.
Finally, the globalization hypothesis links that phenomenon to the falling labor share of income: U.S. industries that are more labor intensive will outsource their work to countries with cheap labor while industries that are more capital intensive will remain in the United States. The result is an increase in the capital share of income and a decrease in the labor share. The trouble with this hypothesis, according to Armenter, is that there is little evidence to support it: the hypothesis predicts that the nation will import goods produced with a lot of labor and export goods produced with a lot of capital, whereas U.S. international trade involves exchanging goods that are quite similar, such as cars.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Title Annotation:||BEYOND BLS|
|Author:||Baker, Brian I.|
|Publication:||Monthly Labor Review|
|Date:||Jan 1, 2016|
|Previous Article:||Reflections on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the Monthly Labor Review.|
|Next Article:||The lure of big cities for the highly educated.|