From: ajit sinha (sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM)
Date: Fri Dec 12 2003 - 05:50:52 EST
--- Ian Wright <ian_paul_wright@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote: > Hello Jerry, > > >The claim that Paul C (following Farjoun and > Machover) made > >concerns an _empirical_ trend (indeed what he > called a "basic and > >consistent feature of capitalism"). When one > examines empirical trends > >(particularly the wage share of national income!), > one can not do this > >"absent the class struggle" because the class > struggle was not absent. > > But you are begging the question by assuming that > the class struggle > is an important factor in determining shares in > national income, rather > than an unimportant one. > > I agree with your general point that it is not > possible to understand > the meaning of empirical data without a theoretical > point of view. > > According to Foley and Michl's book "Growth and > Distribution" the > profit share is normally lower than the wage share, > and varies between > 0.25 to 0.4 of GDP, although it occasionally can be > as high as 0.5 > (data from US, UK and Japan spanning a period of > over 100 years). > Other authors put it around 0.5. According to my > readings, the > consensus is that shares remain fairly stable, > despite undergoing yearly > fluctuations. > > These fluctuations might be due to the political > strength of labour, > or they might not. I would be interested to know if > anyone has tried > to pin that down, and made some comparative studies > of countries > that have different levels of organised labour. > > I must admit that I find it unlikely that the share > is determined > in any important way by the class struggle, just as > I do not think the > detailed income distribution (e.g., lognormal lower > regime, Pareto > property-income regime) is much affected by it. That > is why > I'm interested in systemic explanations, rooted in > the relations of > production, such as that advanced by Farjoun and > Machover, rather > than explanations rooted in conjectural political > interventions collected > under the rubric of the class struggle. But I have > an open mind on > the question. Saying that, it is suspicious that the > ratio is around > one half. > > ATB, > > -Ian. _________________________ I wonder what is included and what is excluded in determining the wage share. Are the various "benifits" calculated in the wage share. For example, let's suppose that a worker has a family medical insurance provided by the firm or the governmet. Do these bills that are paid by either the firms or the government calculated as part of the wages? Secondly, what incomes are counted as wage incomes and what incomes are counted as non-wage incomes. Are the salaries of managers and government officials counted as wages? How about the incomes of professonals such as doctors, engineers, computer programers, etc.? And lastly, what is happening to the rate of profits? Cheers, ajit sinha > > _________________________________________________________________ > The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 > months FREE* > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. http://photos.yahoo.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Dec 13 2003 - 00:00:01 EST