>Because the smaller ones have been either absorbed or out-competed
If so, we would have no small firms.
>There are many businesses in the U.S. that don't even have employees, which skews the numbers.
Non-sequitur as it has nothing to do with my argument. The fact that most businesses are small that even the self-employed can compete with large firms. These small firms employ almost half the private US workforce.
>In addition, companies often have an incentive to shift towards using independent contractors making themselves appear smaller than they actually are
There is a stronger incentive to hire full-time employees, as agencies and interviews can be costly. Otherwise the majority of the workforce would not be full-time. This is a moot point anyway since flexibility of contract work itself means they do not rely on any one firm regardless of size.
>Why would anyone take the risk of doing that especially if you're a small business owner near retirement age who has probably been working in the same industry for years with (likely) little expertise to invest in something new?
Your do not need expertise. A broad market index like the S&P returns 10% and lhas lower risk than operating a business. If they want to go virtually risk-free, there is the bond market.
>Maybe because the owner of capital can choose or not choose to employ his capital without starving while wage earners and the self-employed must work to eat?
An owner of capital is not a monopsony. Owners cannot choose to utilize capital freely without incurring risk and are limited by what the labor market can supply. Capitalists have to work to eat too.
>I'd need to see a source on those statistics.
https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/data/histtab14.xlsx
http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-stock-market-ownership-2013-3
>Taking numbers out of context means nothing
How is it taken out of context? If there is an increase in wage dependency, there should be a decrease in other areas of revenue sources such as housing and stocks.
>What you're saying hasn't been true in the U.S. for decades.
Proof? Are you including total compensation including benefits?
>You're making the assumption that decreased consumption is a result of change in spending habits or increased savings, which is not necessarily the case nor is it the driving factor in the U.S. today.
There is no assumption. All else equal, less expenditure = more savings. The only factor contrary to this trend would be a decrease of real income.
>Could be lack of job opportunities, rising cost of entry into the labor market, or debt.
And how are these all causes of capitalism? All three have state influence.