Labor share decline all due increasing info investment; but what impact info property?

Labor Share Decline and the Capitalization of Intellectual Property Products (pdf):

we find that, the US aggregate LS [Labor Share] decreases from 0.68 in 1947 to 0.60 in 2013

These two new forms of investment (R&D and artistic originals), combined with software (which has been capitalized as part of equipment since the 1999 BEA revision), form a new class of intangible assets, the so-called IPP [Intellectual Property Products]. This re-classification of capital implies an upward revision of all previous estimates of private sector GDP and importantly also an upward revision on the consumption of fixed capital to reflect the depreciation of these new assets. Overall, it captures the increasingly important role of IPP in the US economy: The share of IPP in aggregate investment has increased from 8% in 1947 to 26% in 2013

Using new insights from the post-2013 BEA revision data that capitalize IPP, we show that the decline in the labor share of national income during the past 65 years can be attributed entirely to IPP capital. Further, the somewhat weaker and more recent decline in the labor share displayed by the pre-revision data is analogously explained by the capitalization of software, which was the only IPP component capitalized before the revision. The decline of the labor share should therefore be seen as the result of a shift toward a more IPP-intensive economy, a shift induced by continuing innovation and technological change. It is such technological change and its implications on income distribution across sectors and factors of production that should be modeled.

Finally, while we have not attempted to link labor share and economic inequality (see recent discussions in Krusell and Smith (2014) and Karabarbounis and Neiman (2014b)), the fact that IPP capital is behind the US labor share decline suggests that an explanation of the joint dynamics between the labor share and inequality can benefit from explicitly incorporating entrepreneurial agents and activities that generate IPP.

Note “IPP” must be a superset of investment seeking or resulting in “intellectual property”: the paper does not mention once copyright, patent, law, monopoly, or related terms. Big question: to what extent does making some “IPP” property rather than free speech impact the results – level of investment, labor share, and ultimately freedom, equality, and security?

Restatement of summary-question: Increased investment in “Intellectual Property Products” accounts for decline in labor share from 0.68 in 1947 to 0.60 in 2013; what is the role of “Intellectual Property Policy”?