50% to labor rule with regard to large company revenue

Right now in the US official reports and media try to claim out of psychological convenience that a little over 50% of revenue is going to labor or employees. Remember that from WWII to 1970 as part of the Social Security Act negotiations that number was locked in at 75% going to labor. Initially there wouls have been nothing going to capital but capital begged for a 40hrs vice 28 hrs work week to provide what often turned out to be its often parasitic 25%.

But the recent 2008 census survey showed that only 34% is going to staff-labor-employees. Simply for balance, to keep the peace and stability labor’s share for large firms needs to be locked in at 50%. If automation rids a firm of labor than the tax will take up labor’s share for redistribution. Labor has never been a market. People can’t sell themselves.

Allowings idiots to do what they want with money is not freedom anymore than allowing them to do what they want with bullets would be freedom. Bad actions have to get proper feedback.

And how much is going to self employed people. In Australia that is quite high with many jobs given to “contractors” who are sole traders. Usually average or high income ranges. So for Australia at least that staff-labour-employees percentage would be a very misleading figure.

Would be interesting to know if this is the same for the USA.

Well I am thinking of large firm in the US environment. I guess a small attorney office for instance might be encouraged to more equitably distribute proceeds.

Yea, I was really referring to the survey results. Because to use skewed figures to start with is to skew the conclusions. Sole traders in Australia range from labourers through tradesmen through to professionals.

So if these are included would the 34% rise much closer to the 50% you considered the starting point. And the large firms may not be quite as bad as the quoted stats indicate.

I am all for more equity in wages. 50 years ago in AU the wage difference between the labourer and the CEO was about a fifth of what it is today. The rich are getting richer and the poorer poorer.

Its a good point but I don’t know. Looking at a very conservative local cheap ass county I see their staffing oulay is 34% where the average county is 55%. Now the average state is 20% but its got a lot more taxing power and revenue. I am afraid the 34% in the states is apt to be accurate but itcof coursec excludes CEOs etc, or I would think it would or should with all the options etc., as they effectively have become nasty capital.