cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/15086405

Bureau of Labor Statistics releases latest estimate of how much labor receives of national income, showing bleak decline

When Jesse Motte began working at a Starbucks inside a Target store in Columbia, South Carolina, more than two years ago, $15 an hour sounded great. He was excited to start because it was the most he had ever made after working for years in the service industry.

The excitement has dissipated due to his inconsistent and erratic work schedule, the rising costs of necessities and the minuscule raises he and his co-workers receive annually. His most recent annual wage increase was $0.37 an hour.

Motte is not alone. This week, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released  its latest estimate for the share labor receives of national income for the first quarter of 2024. The statistics shows the income workers receive compared to the productivity their labor generates.

According to BLS, this income share has declined for non-farm workers from around two-thirds, 64.1% in the first quarter of 2001, to 55.8% in the first quarter of 2024.

  • darthelmet@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    6 months ago

    The core problem isn’t tax policy. That’s a symptom of the problem. The problem is power. Capitalists have it as an inherent property of their class. Workers can have power, but only collectively. Individual workers can’t exercise much power. Therefore, in the absence of a check to their power, capitalists use it to enhance it further.

    Make people poor and dependent on employment and consumption so that they’re desperate enough to accept poor pay and working conditions.

    Atomize workers so they can’t realize their collective power.

    Use ownership over media and communications platforms to put out favorable propaganda and discredit those opposed to capitalist interests.

    Use bribes campaign contributions to subvert democracy and shape the government to their will, such as tax policy , labor law, business and financial regulations, and imperialist foreign policy.

    No lasting gains can be made for the working class while capitalists hold this power. Any policy can be watered down, repealed, or resisted by capitalists given time. There is no structural way for a system built by and for capitalist interests to reign in the power of that class.

    • alvvayson@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      6 months ago

      Dude, I’m really sorry, but the 19th century sent a letter by pony express and they want their economic theory back.

      There are struggling “capitalists” that own their own little manufacturing company, restaurant, hair salon or other small business.

      And then there are rich as hell “workers” like Taylor Swift who have become billionaires through their own labour. She can fill football stadiums full of people willing to pay top dollar to see her perform, I simply can’t.

      And I think most people don’t have a problem with Taylor being a billionaire.

      But the problem arises when middle class people pay half of what they have in tax, while rich people have effective tax rates of <10%. Jeff Bezos had a five figure tax bill as he became the richest man in the world.

      A million middle class Americans making $100K are still out earning Jeff by a huge margin, but they are collectively also paying way more tax than Jeff, so Jeff can keep investing his money, while those million Americans live paycheck to paycheck.

      • darthelmet@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        6 months ago

        There are struggling “capitalists” that own their own little manufacturing company, restaurant, hair salon or other small business. And then there are rich as hell “workers” like Taylor Swift who have become billionaires through their own labour. She can fill football stadiums full of people willing to pay top dollar to see her perform, I simply can’t. And I think most people don’t have a problem with Taylor being a billionaire.

        These are kind of exceptions that prove the rule. Small business owners may often be workers themselves, but they also still profit from minimizing costs and maximizing revenue. They have the same incentives as any other capitalist, even if they have less ability to act on them due to lack of resources and competition keeping them in check. Even to the extent that these are more acceptable forms of capitalists, the trend in the economy for a long time has been towards consolidation and large companies putting smaller ones out of business.

        Similarly, while some artists make it big, far more of them end up exploited by record labels, studios, etc. In fact even some of the successful artists have stories about their awful contracts.

        There’s also the aspect of this which is that once you have enough money to invest it in significant amounts, you indirectly enter into the role of a capitalist, since the profit you derive from those stocks is the same as the profit made from the companies exploiting workers.

        But the problem arises when middle class people pay half of what they have in tax, while rich people have effective tax rates of <10%. Jeff Bezos had a five figure tax bill as he became the richest man in the world.

        More to the point though, I ask you why/how they end up paying so little in taxes? Tax law didn’t fall from the sky. It isn’t just that the politicians were stupid or that most people wanted it this way. This is the result of the structure of political power in a capitalist nation.

        So how do you address the problem: “Rich people don’t pay enough taxes and poorer people pay too much.” I can come up with any number of clever policies to solve our problems, but what good does that do if you can’t make the government adopt these policies?

        This is why you need a theory for understanding how power is distributed, used, and perpetuated in a society. Otherwise you’re doomed to keep asking the question “Why don’t they just do this?” It’s not a new idea, but it’s still relevant.

        If you disagree, I challenge you to be able to explain how we got here or how we move forward without any kind of structural critique.

        • alvvayson@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          You are stuck at step 1, I invite you to move on to step 2 and actually start looking at how we are gonna solve problems.

          You can go back all the way to colonial times and feudal times and even earlier to discuss how societies have become less egalitarian since the invention of agriculture.

          But we are here, right now and it’s best to identify the actions we can take today, for a brighter tomorrow.

          • darthelmet@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            6 months ago

            I mean, how we got here probably can inform us as to how we proceed. But ok, fine. Ignore the first part. Answer the 2nd part.