Not quite. I want to see the paper to go further, but he is assuming that 5% goes to workers for their "pure" labor and another share goes to workers as payment for their "human capital". Rob Schaap wrote: > G'day Michael, > > Let me get this straight. Does this mean that 95% of the wealth > distributed throughout the US economy does not go to those who derive their > living exclusively through their labour? > > If I'm not completely off the mark, this is very possibly the most stunning > statistic I've ever seen! > > Wow. > Rob. > > >ABSTRACT: > > This paper considers conceptual and practical issues that arise > > in measuring labor's share of national income. Most importantly: > > How are workers defined? How is compensation defined? The > > current definition of labor compensation used by the Bureau of > > Economic Analysis (BEA) includes the salary of business owners > > and payments to retired workers in labor compensation. An > > alternative series to the BEA's standard series is presented. In > > addition, a simple method for decomposing labor compensation > > into a component due to "raw labor" and a component due to human > > capital is presented. Raw labor's share of national income is > > estimated using Census and CPS data. The share of national > > income attributable to raw labor increased from 9.6 percent to > > 13 percent between 1939 and 1959, remained at 12-13 percent > > between 1959 and 1979, and fell to 5 percent by 1996. > > > >-- > >Michael Perelman > >Economics Department > >California State University > >Chico, CA 95929 > > > >Tel. 530-898-5321 > >E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
