U.S. Government shuts down.

[Jester]

Only in the imaginary math world where 2.65 million (2010 exec branch workers) is less than 2.63 million (2002 executive branch workers).

A) We were comparing with 1980. Where did 2002 come from?

B) The absolute number is almost entirely stagnant through time. Yearly variation is irrelevant.

C) Any way you slice it, more resources are being distributed, and more people are being serviced, by fewer workers *per capita*.

-Jester

---

You are right. When I googled the first chart it gave me labor share and a bunch of other stuff compared to corporate profits for whatever reason. Mind you, I am not an economist so I had to find out what "labor share" meant exactly. However, this one does:

Labour share matters. It just doesn't matter for the unemployment rate - at least not directly. I'm sure labour share is generally higher in times of lower unemployment, all else equal.

However, the graph no longer shows what you want it to show. The entire 1990s and most of the 2000s have the two variables moving against each other in a way backwards to (what I assume is) your hypothesis.

-Jester