One of the things we know that ain't so: Is US labor's share relatively stable?

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

23 Scopus citations

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)90-102
Number of pages13
JournalJournal of Macroeconomics
Volume32
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 2010

Keywords

  • Balanced growth
  • Economic growth
  • Factor shares
  • Great ratio
  • Income distribution
  • Labor's share

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'One of the things we know that ain't so: Is US labor's share relatively stable?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this