NYT publishes an article on the superstar effect, only this time applied to firms and not individuals. Let’s take a look.
For much of the last century it seemed that the slice of the total economic pie going to workers was — like the speed of light — constant. No matter what the economy’s makeup, labor could collectively depend on taking home roughly two-thirds of the country’s total output as compensation for its efforts. Workers’ unchanging share, the economist John Maynard Keynes declared in 1939, was “one of the most surprising, yet best-established, facts in the whole range of economic statistics.”
But in recent decades, that steady share — which includes everything from the chief executive’s bonuses and stock options to the parking-lot attendant’s minimum wage and tips — started to flutter. In the 2000s, it slipped significantly. Although the numbers have inched up in the last couple of years, labor’s portion has not risen above 59 percent since before the recession.
The decline has coincided with a slowdown in overall growth as well as a stark leap in inequality. “Labor is getting a shrinking slice of a pie that’s not growing very much,” David Autor, an economist at M.I.T., said. It is a development that is upending political establishments and economic policies in the United States and abroad.
Some economists argue that technological advancements are to blame as employers have replaced workers with machines. Others point to trade powered by cheap foreign labor, a view championed by President Trump that particularly resonated among voters.
Alternate culprits include tax policies that treat investment income more favorably than wages; flagging skills and education that have rendered workers less productive or unsuited to an information- and service-based economy; or a weakening of labor unions that has chipped away at workers’ bargaining power and protections.
The article goes into superstar firms briefly.
The idea of superstars vacuuming up a majority of goodies is perhaps more obvious on the individual level. Because of technology like cable and satellite television and the internet, music luminaries like Beyoncé and Taylor Swift or sports phenoms like LeBron James or Cristiano Ronaldo can reach a much larger audience and gain a greater proportion of the revenue generated.
Writing about the advent of superstars in the modern era, the economist Sherwin Rosen noted in 1981 that there was “a strong tendency for both market size and reward to be skewed toward the most talented people in the activity.”
What was once true of pop stars can now be seen in more mundane industries. “Over the past several decades, only the highest earners have seen steady wage gains,” a report from the president’s Council of Economic Advisers concluded late last year. “For most workers, wage growth has been sluggish and has failed to keep pace with gains in productivity.”
This is more interesting. He cites the Sherwin Rosen paper that I reference in my book. The examples cited also are entertainment (media and sports) sensations, with an indirect contribution from technology making it easier to share that with a wider audience, allowing superstars to take more and more of the overall spending pie on entertainmment. That’s exactly what I wrote in my book.
It feels good to be vindicated.