- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
US workers are taking home less of what they produce than ever before
Posted on 1/12/26 at 10:11 pm
Posted on 1/12/26 at 10:11 pm
For all the “poor me” whining of Gen Z, it’s hard to argue this not being a discouraging trend.
What is the counter to this?
ETA: My guess is that gig-worker output (1099’s) is a factor.
What is the counter to this?
ETA: My guess is that gig-worker output (1099’s) is a factor.
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.This post was edited on 1/12/26 at 10:13 pm
19
Posted on 1/12/26 at 10:18 pm to Ag Zwin
We’re being taxed into submission. At lest half of what we earn goes to some form of tax. What do we get in return?
Posted on 1/12/26 at 10:20 pm to adavis
quote:
What do we get in return?
Feel good stories during the NFL playoffs about single mothers.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 10:20 pm to Ag Zwin
Your title is not what the graph shows.
You are interpreting this to mean that per worker, they are only getting 53% of the output they produce, but the graph is referring to labor income across entire economy.
The reason that “labor’s” share of gdp has fallen since the late 90s is because of the baby boomers retiring and the American age pyramid increasingly becoming top heavy.
Compared to the 90s and before, a huge chunk of gdp is retirees earning social security.
This artificially lowers the labor share of gdp
You are interpreting this to mean that per worker, they are only getting 53% of the output they produce, but the graph is referring to labor income across entire economy.
The reason that “labor’s” share of gdp has fallen since the late 90s is because of the baby boomers retiring and the American age pyramid increasingly becoming top heavy.
Compared to the 90s and before, a huge chunk of gdp is retirees earning social security.
This artificially lowers the labor share of gdp
Posted on 1/12/26 at 10:43 pm to Ag Zwin
Tech advances are making everyone more productive and more productive.
So that’s kind of a bullshite stat.
When a new tool makes you 10 times more productive, of course you’re gonna take home less of what you produce.
So that’s kind of a bullshite stat.
When a new tool makes you 10 times more productive, of course you’re gonna take home less of what you produce.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 10:47 pm to Ag Zwin
Class envy populist bait nonsense.
For the following reasons:
1. The statistic itself is meaningless without proper context. It doesn't mean that US workers are making less (and if, in fact, that was the case, they surely would have led with that instead of this). The way the data is worded on that post it doesn't even mean that the fact that companies are making more has anything to do with this. All it means is that workers are getting a lower share of revenue.
2. This:
Technology could be replacing hourly wage jobs. Certain functions could be outsourced overseas (customer service to India). If that is the case, then it's not that "workers" are producing more. "Workers" plus technology are producing more. Or US workers plus Indian workers are producing more.
3. Again, it doesn't mean that US workers are making less. So what business is it of theirs whether the company they work for is making more money or not? They agreed to do a certain job for a certain amount of compensation. Anything beyond that is none of their business. They aren't entitled to make more money because the company makes more money (unless they have a specific contract that stipulates that).
They didn't take any of the financial risk of starting the company or provide any of the capital to start it.
This is just ninny nonsense to upset populists. Don't fall for it.
For the following reasons:
1. The statistic itself is meaningless without proper context. It doesn't mean that US workers are making less (and if, in fact, that was the case, they surely would have led with that instead of this). The way the data is worded on that post it doesn't even mean that the fact that companies are making more has anything to do with this. All it means is that workers are getting a lower share of revenue.
2. This:
quote:. Is not necessarily true at all.
This means workers are producing more, but corporations are capturing an increasing portion of the gains.
Technology could be replacing hourly wage jobs. Certain functions could be outsourced overseas (customer service to India). If that is the case, then it's not that "workers" are producing more. "Workers" plus technology are producing more. Or US workers plus Indian workers are producing more.
3. Again, it doesn't mean that US workers are making less. So what business is it of theirs whether the company they work for is making more money or not? They agreed to do a certain job for a certain amount of compensation. Anything beyond that is none of their business. They aren't entitled to make more money because the company makes more money (unless they have a specific contract that stipulates that).
They didn't take any of the financial risk of starting the company or provide any of the capital to start it.
This is just ninny nonsense to upset populists. Don't fall for it.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 11:16 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
My title is a direct quote from the tweet, the point of which is that workers are paid a smaller portion of the overall economic output.
If you accept the premise that people produce the output (and that is open for debate), then it’s a valid claim.
If you accept the premise that people produce the output (and that is open for debate), then it’s a valid claim.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 11:37 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
They didn't take any of the financial risk of starting the company or provide any of the capital to start it.
Not everyone wants to an entrepreneur. Some just want to work for a capitalist. In fact I think that is the majority of folks. But this statement seems to say, well so sad too bad, should hav been a business owners when you were 21 years old or 25 or 30. Not everyone is like that then or now, that is too libertarian of a take.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 11:42 pm to Ag Zwin
quote:
For all the “poor me” whining of Gen Z, it’s hard to argue this not being a discouraging trend.
What is the counter to this?
ETA: My guess is that gig-worker output (1099’s) is a factor.
If you take the cumulative taxes (payroll, fuel taxes, personal property taxes, real estate taxes, local taxes, etc) paid by Americans who actually pay taxes, the typical American is probably paying over 40% of their household income on taxes.
Posted on 1/13/26 at 5:26 am to Ag Zwin
quote:Not really.
If you accept the premise that people produce the output (and that is open for debate), then it’s a valid claim.
HHTM makes a very good point.
Here's an illustration with FRED's LFPR graph superimposed over yours.
In fact, one could argue that the real complaint of "US Labor" should be with the period 1960-1990 where labor wages only kept pace due to increased LFPR
Posted on 1/13/26 at 5:51 am to Ag Zwin
quote:
What is the counter to this?
First, help make sure there are good jobs and a strong economy. That means low taxes and less regulation.
Second, attempt to deal with the three big negatives killing young Americans and sucking their finances: education costs, healthcare costs, and housing costs.
Education: college tuition has been exploding at 3x the rate of inflation. Colleges have no skin in the game; they get paid whether the student defaults or not, from the student or the taxpayer. Make them have skin in the game and put them on the hook for student defaults to motivate them to take more responsibility with the money they’re throwing around. Promote and help grow a system of lower cost trade schools and apprenticeships.
Healthcare costs: the ACA is killing us. Insurance companies are feeding off the cash cow of government money taken from hard working taxpayers in the form of subsidies. They have zero motivation to help keep premiums low. Explore possibility of replacing it with a very base level of medical coverage for every American citizen then allow people to purchase additional supplemental insurance if they wish. Create a blue ribbon committee of smart, experienced people from across the healthcare spectrum to meet and study the goal of a better alternative to the ACA.
Home ownership: more young people are being priced out of the American Dream of owning their home. Dramatically increase the housing numbers through incentives that promote construction of new housing and renovations of existing housing to help lower costs. Create tax incentives to help people buy their first home. Push for lowering property taxes at grassroots level.
Posted on 1/13/26 at 5:54 am to adavis
Trannies, retards and frauds.
Posted on 1/13/26 at 5:56 am to Ag Zwin
quote:
What is the counter to this?
Nuke the Federal Reserve and their horseshite Monopoly money.
Return to sound currency backed by gold & silver
Posted on 1/13/26 at 6:11 am to adavis
quote:
We’re being taxed into submission.
Is that it? The graph isn’t very informative. If we automate a process, and the former laborers learn to code, go on welfare or become uber drivers, the percent of GDP going to labor would decrease - and that would be a great thing.
Or by “labor” do they mean anyone drawing a salary?
This post was edited on 1/13/26 at 6:17 am
Posted on 1/13/26 at 6:31 am to BigJim
You are correct but these type of arguments are made for meme land and so people are going to look at a chart and not think about the actual economic principles at play.
Posted on 1/13/26 at 6:55 am to adavis
quote:
We’re being taxed into submission. At lest half of what we earn goes to some form of tax. What do we get in return?
The real damaging tax is the one that no one will vote against, because both parties are FOR it: deficit spend, inflate, erode earnings. And it’s 8% per year.
Posted on 1/13/26 at 7:01 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
Then what explains this graph?
fred.stlouisfed.org
It’s the share of GDP that is collected in firm profits. Thereby, not being reinvested in new job growth or filtering down into wage growth for employees.
fred.stlouisfed.org
It’s the share of GDP that is collected in firm profits. Thereby, not being reinvested in new job growth or filtering down into wage growth for employees.
This post was edited on 1/13/26 at 7:08 am
Posted on 1/13/26 at 7:08 am to Ag Zwin
I mean...at least gen z athletes are getting paid a bunch via "nil" deals. It'll all pan out
Posted on 1/13/26 at 7:36 am to funnystuff
quote:
It’s the share of GDP that is collected in firm profits. Thereby, not being reinvested in new job growth
Just being stuffed into someone's mattress at the corporate HQ?
Page 1 of 3
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News