The labor share of income in the US is at its lowest post-war level

[dead]

Re:The labor share of income in the US is at its lowest post... by didgetmaster on Wednesday July 01, 2026 @01:38AM (#48742678)

Those numbers for 2026 may be right, but they absolutely do not mean that anyone who finds themselves in one of those categories must stay there.

While there are many people who are currently in the bottom 50% and will probably stay there; no one is a slave who has to stay there.

My original post (which is somehow unpopular on HN) points this out. I spent my first 30 years in that group and worked my way out of it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The labor share of income in the US is at its lowest post... by joe_mamba on Wednesday July 01, 2026 @02:03AM (#48742852)

>no one is a slave who has to stay there

That's like saying not everyone who finds themselves homeless must stay homeless, as if they can just choose to go buy a house.

>I spent my first 30 years in that group and worked my way out of it.

And what did the job market look like over the those 30 years versus today? You probably weren't competing with infinity AI bots at every resume application.

Not here to steal your thunder and deny your individual success story, but the tired "I pulled myself by my bootstraps" doesn't mean anything to the people who are strugling.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The labor share of income in the US is at its lowest post... by didgetmaster on Friday July 03, 2026 @07:42AM (#48773855)

The vast majority of the homeless in the US, are homeless by choice. They are addicted to drugs and/or refuse to get a job.

You don't have to be able to afford to buy a nice house in order to escape living on the streets.

You might think that my story is tired, but literally millions of people in this country have done the same thing. Telling people who are struggling that they can't improve, certainly doesn't help.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The labor share of income in the US is at its lowest post... by vannevar on Wednesday July 01, 2026 @08:30PM (#48754903)

You are making the common mistake of confusing two different things: the absolute capacity for an individual to improve their income over their lifetime, and the relative capacity to improve based on their current decile. If progress depended solely on merit, you would expect economic growth to be more or less evenly distributed across the percentiles---the "rising tide raises all boats" idea. That this doesn't happen suggests that people in higher deciles not only have more wealth, but are more likely to acquire additional wealth. Many wealthy people---and even some poorer ones---maintain that this is because the wealthy must be more industrious. But the vast majority of wealthy people started life in the upper deciles. And it's clear that having wealth makes it easier to make more wealth.

If you doubt this, consider the following thought experiment: imagine two strangers, identical in ability. One wins a million dollars in the lottery, the other is poor. If you were forced to wager your net worth on which twin is likely to make the most money over the next 12 months, who would you bet on? Now think about what kind of qualities would it take to get you to change your bet. How much smarter and harder working would the man with nothing have to be to overcome the advantage of a million dollars? Or even $100,000? You might say, yes, maybe in one year money would have the advantage---but surely an advantage in industriousness would win out in the long run? The mathematical answer is no, because the lottery winner will have a bigger advantage at the beginning of year 2 than he did at the start. If you bet on him in year 1, the bet is even surer in year 2. The reality is that he will continue to pull away. And that's what we see in the real world distribution of wealth: the gap between the wealthiest decile and the next poorest continues to expand, creating increasing social and political strain, as we can plainly see today.

[ Parent | on HN ]