当前位置: X-MOL 学术NBER Macroeconomics Annual › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Comment
NBER Macroeconomics Annual ( IF 5.385 ) Pub Date : 2019-01-01 , DOI: 10.1086/700902
Richard Rogerson

The title of this paper tells us that the goal of this analysis is to account for something called “factorless income.” Two immediate questions arise. What is factorless income? And why do we need to account for it? Although there are perhaps several motivations that might lead to this analysis, I think one prominent motivation stems from the interest in understanding the secular decline in the labor share that has been observed in the United States and other countries in the past several decades, a feature that the authors have documented in their previous work. Figure 1 shows the decline in the labor share in the United States since 1960, with “labor share” here defined the same way that Karabarbounis and Neiman define it: total employee payroll as a fraction of gross domestic product. (This is what Elsby, Hobijn, and Sahin [2013] termed the “payroll share” to emphasize that it does not include all payments to labor. Importantly,much though not all of the secular trend in various measures of the labor share is accounted for by changes in the payroll share.) I have also included a linear trend in the figure. It is important to emphasize up front that in my view, the feature of primary interest is the modest negative trend. The reason for this is that for many decades the labor share exhibited no trend, and it is this change, albeit somewhat modest, that is most striking. Although there are indeed some significant fluctuations around the linear trend, and one could seek to understand the source of the fluctuations, I think they are of second-order importance. A question that many researchers have been asking is what lies behind the trend decline in the labor share, and the literature has suggested several possible answers. One dimension that usefully separates the explanations into two classes is the extent to which the decrease in

中文翻译:

评论

这篇论文的标题告诉我们,这个分析的目标是解释一种叫做“无因素收入”的东西。两个直接的问题出现了。什么是无因素收入?为什么我们需要考虑它?虽然可能有多种动机可能导致这种分析,但我认为一个突出的动机源于对了解过去几十年在美国和其他国家观察到的劳动力份额长期下降的兴趣,这是一个特征作者在他们之前的工作中记录了这一点。图 1 显示了自 1960 年以来美国劳动力份额的下降,此处“劳动力份额”的定义与卡拉巴布尼斯和内曼的定义方式相同:雇员工资总额占国内生产总值的一部分。(这就是埃尔斯比,霍比金,和 Sahin [2013] 将“工资份额”称为“工资份额”,以强调它不包括对劳动力的所有支付。重要的是,尽管并非所有劳动力份额的各种衡量指标的长期趋势都由工资份额的变化引起。)我还在图中包含了线性趋势。重要的是要预先强调,在我看来,主要关注的特征是适度的负面趋势。其原因是,几十年来劳动力份额没有表现出任何趋势,而这种变化虽然有些微不足道,但却是最引人注目的。尽管围绕线性趋势确实存在一些显着波动,并且可以寻求了解波动的来源,但我认为它们具有二阶重要性。许多研究人员一直在问的一个问题是劳动力份额下降趋势背后的原因是什么,文献提出了几种可能的答案。将解释分为两类有用的一个维度是减少的程度
更新日期:2019-01-01
down
wechat
bug