> Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> > U.S. corporate profitability peaked in late 96/early 97, and has been
> > flat-to-down since. It makes you wonder where the alleged
> > productivity boom is paying off.
> .
> Well it paid off in the NIPA statistics, didn't it? Output per worker
> zoomed. So why didn't it show up in the profit rate? Accounting-wise,
> wouldn't it have to be because the output/capital ratio (aka "capital
> productivity) stagnated? Is that consistent with the data?
>
> Seth
Would this have anything to do with the fact that NIPA counts exercised stock options as compensation? Don't know if the rate of exercise went up b/w 96 and 00, but it would make sense--more surplus going to labor, even tho most stock options go to managers.
Christian