MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158192196 · doi:10.3386/w18154

Declining Labor Shares and the Global Rise of Corporate Saving

2012· report· en· W2158192196 on OpenAlexaff
Loukas Karabarbounis, Brent Neiman

Bibliographic record

VenueNational Bureau of Economic Research · 2012
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic theories and models
Canadian institutionsHEC Montréal
FundersBooth School of Business, University of ChicagoNeubauer Family FoundationUniversity of Chicago
KeywordsLabour economicsBusinessEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The stability of the labor share is a key foundation in macroeconomic models.We document, however, that the global labor share has significantly declined over the last 30 years.This decline was associated with a significant increase in corporate saving, generally the largest component of national saving.We relate the labor share to corporate saving empirically and theoretically using a model featuring CES production and imperfections in the flow of funds between households and corporations.These two departures from the standard neoclassical model imply that the labor share fluctuates and that corporate saving affects macroeconomic allocations.We argue that it is important to study the labor share and corporate saving jointly, and offer a unified explanation for their trends.A global decline in the cost of capital beginning around 1980 induced firms to shift away from labor and toward capital, financed in part with an increase in corporate saving.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.537
GPT teacher head0.474
Teacher spread0.063 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations54
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNational Bureau of Economic ResearchSame topicEconomic theories and modelsFrench-language works237,207