U.S. Government shuts down.

[FireIceTalon]

Only in the imaginary math world where 2.65 million (2010 exec branch workers) is less than 2.63 million (2002 executive branch workers).

A) We were comparing with 1980. Where did 2002 come from?

B) The absolute number is almost entirely stagnant through time. Yearly variation is irrelevant.

C) Any way you slice it, more resources are being distributed, and more people are being serviced, by fewer workers *per capita*.

-Jester

---

You are right. When I googled the first chart it gave me labor share and a bunch of other stuff compared to corporate profits for whatever reason. Mind you, I am not an economist so I had to find out what "labor share" meant exactly. However, this one does:

Labour share matters. It just doesn't matter for the unemployment rate - at least not directly. I'm sure labour share is generally higher in times of lower unemployment, all else equal.

However, the graph no longer shows what you want it to show. The entire 1990s and most of the 2000s have the two variables moving against each other in a way backwards to (what I assume is) your hypothesis.

-Jester

Yea, but the fact unemployment is high right now, with corporate profits at record highs is enough to disprove the notion that the owners of capital are the "job creators", yes? Even without a chart, it just doesn't make sense, because the so-called 'cult of the entrepreneur' is still nothing without labor power. Every idea, no matter how innovative it is, needs labor to make it real (much in the same way that matter must exist before consciousness can exist in material, tangible way). This is kind of the whole basis of Idealism vs. Materialism, but in an economic context instead of a philosophical one - with the "job creator" myth being a form of economic idealism, but labor power being the driving force in the creation of all social value being economic materialism.

Its the same deal with Marx's thought on the falling rate of profits - he thought falling rates of profit always led to higher unemployment, but he was wrong about this. The last 3 years have seen both higher total profits AND higher rates of profit, yet unemployment is still quite high. I think falling rates of profit have tend to lead to higher unemployment rates but the last 3 years have shown this isn't always the case. The more important question of course, is why.

Oh, and I figured I'd share this:

Neoclassical economics debunked in less than 20 minutes