One of the things we know that ain't so: Is US labor's share relatively stable?
Solow (1958) argued that, from 1929 to 1954, US aggregate labor's share was not stable relative to what we would expect given individual industry labor's shares. I confirm and extend this result using data from 1958 to 1996 that includes 35 industries (roughly two-digit SIC level) and spans the entire US economy. Changes in industry shares in total value-added are essentially unrelated to aggregate labor's share movements. Industry labor's shares comovements contribute positively to aggregate labor's share movements. These findings give us a clearer perspective on one of the stylized facts of economic growth. If the great macroeconomic ratio is meaningful, it must be interpreted in terms of long-run, offsetting shifts in "services" industries versus "goods" industries, both in terms of their labor's shares and shares in total value-added. At least at an annual frequency, there is nothing particularly stable about aggregate labor's share.
Year of publication: |
2010
|
---|---|
Authors: | Young, Andrew T. |
Published in: |
Journal of Macroeconomics. - Elsevier, ISSN 0164-0704. - Vol. 32.2010, 1, p. 90-102
|
Publisher: |
Elsevier |
Keywords: | Labor' s share Factor shares Income distribution Great ratio Balanced growth Economic growth |
Saved in:
Saved in favorites
Similar items by person
-
LaborÅ› share fluctuations, biased technical change, and the business cycle
Young, Andrew T., (2004)
-
The limits of generality for constitutional design
Young, Andrew T., (2023)
-
Young, Andrew T., (2009)
- More ...