{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.052443384982121574, 'fraction_numerical': 0.04767580452920143, 'mean_word_length': 5.363636363636363, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The U.S. Labor Income Share and Automation Shocks

The causes and consequences of the 1964&#8211;2016 swings in the U.S. labor income share/labor share (LS) are parsed through the lens of a structural model estimated on aggregate and LS series jointly. Where conventional models fall short, the present model yields a counter&#8208;cyclical LS unconditionally and in response to demand and monetary policy shocks, as well as a small wage pro&#8208;cyclicality, via moderate wage indexation. Shifts in automation, workers' market power, investment efficiency, and the relative price of investment account for 54%, 24%, 6%, and 4% of LS fluctuations, respectively. Automation shocks explain the lion's share of the post&#8208;2007 cyclical LS tumble and 11% of output cycles, and generate a distinctive counter&#8208;cyclical labor response.