From: Philip Dunn (pscumnud@DIRCON.CO.UK)
Date: Mon Nov 24 2003 - 13:17:08 EST
Quoting Paul Cockshott <wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK>: > ---------------- > The big picture for me is that if services such as retailing, > transport, finance, advertising etc. are treated as unproductive, and > they form an increasing proportion of the economy, labour in the > productive manufacturing fraction has to be exploited at an ever > increasing rate in order to account for undiminished non-wage income. > I do not think this is for real. > > Phil > ---------------- > > Paul: > Remember that transport is normally treated as productive. > Empirical studies of exploitation that take into account unproductive > labour do show just this over time. > > Why do you not think it is for real? > ------------------------------- Phil: I don't think there is an emprical test for unproductive labour. The decision to call labour prodctive or unproductive is purely theoretical. Different people will make different choices. Consequently, empirical work will come up with different values for the rate of exploitation and its changes over time. My choice is to have as little unproductive labour as possible. So I would not accept empirical results that used a different choice. Perhaps the data should be analysed using a range of choices. At least then it would be possible to see the effect of making different choices. Phil
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Nov 25 2003 - 00:00:01 EST