US Labor Share of Income Hits Post-War Low: What It Means

The latest data from the New York Fed shows the US labor share of income at its lowest since WWII. But the real story lies beneath the numbers. A recent post from Liberty Street Economics dropped this sobering point, and the community response on Hacker News reveals why the headline may be misleading.

What the NY Fed Found About Labor Share of Income

The Federal Reserve Bank of New York's analysis examines the post-COVID decline in the labor share—the portion of national income that goes to workers in wages, salaries, and benefits. The article's main conclusion: “this time is different” arguments don’t hold up. The current decline follows patterns from past episodes (2000–2007 and 2007–2019). They find little evidence that the post-COVID trend will diverge from historical precedent.

The piece is data-heavy, looking at both aggregate and industry-level shares, but deliberately avoids strong causal claims. It acknowledges the decline since 2020 is real, but notes it may partly reflect measurement challenges and compositional shifts.

Why the Decline Sparks Debate: Healthcare Costs and Tax Shifts

The Hacker News thread (119 points, 35 comments) reveals a community wrestling with the implications. Several themes recur:

• Healthcare costs as hidden compensation: One commenter wrote: “The actual labor share of income is significantly higher when you include employer contributions to employee health insurance premiums. Healthcare costs have been rising faster than overall inflation for decades... If we want to increase the labor share then we'll drive down healthcare spending.”

• Tax-driven statistical illusion: Another argued: “This is mostly a statistical illusion caused by changes to US tax law... The doctor, lawyer, financial advisor, CPA etc. that in past decades would have had his/her income run through a W2 arrangement shifted to becoming a one-person corporation.”

• Productivity puzzle: A shorter comment simply asked: “Could it be because the productivity is up?”

• A broader wealth concentration: One user opined: “It feels like every share of income is at its lowest except for the ultra wealthy.”

These comments highlight the tension between aggregate data and lived experience, and between different structural explanations.

Productivity and Wealth Concentration: Deeper Factors

The NY Fed piece is refreshingly honest in its uncertainty, but the real value lies in the community pushback. The healthcare cost argument is compelling: if a rising share of labor compensation is being diverted to expensive health insurance, the measured labor share understates what workers actually “receive.” According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, employer health insurance premiums have risen 47% over the past decade, far outpacing wage growth. If we adjust for that, the picture looks less dire—but also points to a broken healthcare system that squeezes take-home pay.

The S corp shift is equally important. Over the last few decades, tax code changes (especially the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act) made it advantageous for high-income professionals to incorporate and pay themselves as business income rather than wages. This reclassifies what was once labor income into capital income, artificially depressing the labor share. Economists like Matthew Smith at the Treasury Department have estimated this could account for up to half of the observed decline. The Fed paper notes this but doesn't fully control for it.

On productivity: if productivity rises while wages don't keep pace, labor share falls. That is exactly what the data show since the 1970s, but the Fed's post focuses on the post-COVID period where productivity growth has been modest. The story may be more about the long-run decoupling of pay from output, which the piece doesn't address directly.

What This Means for Builders in HR Tech and Compensation

If you build products in the HR tech, compensation analytics, or labor market data space, there are concrete implications:

• Compensation benchmark tools need to account for total cost of employment (including health benefits), not just wages. Builders should consider surfacing “effective labor share” calculations that include employer-paid premiums.
• Tax-aware financial planning tools could help users understand whether incorporating as an S corp makes sense, and how that affects reported labor share statistics.
• Productivity dashboards should integrate wage growth data alongside output per hour, to help companies see if their productivity gains are being shared with workers.

For example, a simple Python function to compute adjusted labor share:

def adjusted_labor_share(wages, employer_health_benefits, total_income):
    total_labor = wages + employer_health_benefits
    return total_labor / total_income

This isn't revolutionary, but the gap between standard and adjusted measures is growing.

The Bottom Line: Don't Trust the Headline

If you work in macroeconomics, labor policy, or HR analytics, yes—the declining labor share is a key metric that shapes debates on inequality and compensation design. If you're a software builder outside those domains, you can probably ignore the aggregate numbers, but the underlying drivers (healthcare cost inflation, tax arbitrage) will affect your own compensation and hiring markets.

The most actionable takeaway: don't take headline statistics at face value. Dig into the definitions, adjustments, and assumptions. The story is always more nuanced than a single chart.

---

Links: Original NY Fed Article · HN Discussion · Kaiser Health Insurance Costs · Treasury S Corp Study