From: Simon Mohun (s.mohun@QMUL.AC.UK)
Date: Tue Jan 06 2004 - 09:40:00 EST
Paul B: WHAT IS 'ACTUALLY UNCLEAR' IS THE POINT YOU WISH TO MAKE. Sorry. >THE OVERALL AVERAGE WAGE OF US WORKERS SAYS LITTLE ABOUT THE LABOUR >ARISTOCRACY UNLESS >YOU WISH TO IDENTIFIY ALL U.S. WORKERS WITH SUCH A SECTION, WHICH I DO NOT. >IT IS TRUE THAT EVEN THE POOR IN THE US HAVE TENDED TO LIVE BETTER THAN THE >MOST MISERABLE IN THE OPPRESSED STATES, BUT THIS IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO CLASS >THE US POOR AS LABOUR ARISTICRATS! YOUR '18 CENTS' WORTH IS THEREFORE NOT OF >ANY MERIT IN THIS DISCUSSION UNLESS YOU ARE POINTING TO THE STATISTICAL FACT >THAT AS SOME GET RICHER, OTHERS GET POORER, AND SO YOURSELF LEAVE THE >QUESTION OPEN. It is empirically true that, on average, 83 per cent of employed labour have achieved a total increase in real wages per hour of 18 cents over about two decades. This allows for direct taxes, superannuation payments and cash benefits from the state. The other 17 per cent (roughly supervisory labour) have done very very much better. >WHENYOU MOVE TO NON PRODUCTION WORKERS YOU ABANDON SKILLED, HIGHER PAID, >PRODUCTION WORKERS, AND INCLUDE LOW PAID SERVICE WORKERS . WHY? The BLS definition roughly distinguishes labour that supervises from labour that doesn't. Define supervisory labour as unproductive. Then that leaves production workers in productive sectors (defined by SIC), which is productive labour, and production workers in unproductive sectors (roughly trade and financial), which has to be added to supervisory labour to get total unproductive labour. The distinction between productive and unproductive labour is important (but you know that), but so too is the distinction between production and nonproduction workers. It depends what questions you want to ask. >THE AIM OF 'PROGRESSIVE' ( SUBJECTIVELY) CAPITALISTS, IS TO MAKE THE WORKERS >BELIEVE THAT THERE IS NO ANTAGONISM BETWEEN LABOUR AND CAPITAL , AND AS >MANY HAVE POINTED OUT THEY ARE PREPARED TO SPEND A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF MONEY >( EG 'by giving office employees and skilled workers a share of the >profits'... KRUPSKAYA ) IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THEIR AIM. Now you seem to want to make a different distinction. I have no problem with this; as I said it depends what questions you want to ask. But, and this is the issue, you seem to be saying A. some workers are paid more than others (office employees and skilled workers?) B. these extra wage payments have their origin in the exploitation of third world workers. A is obviously true, but which workers do you want to group together and why? What are the trends through time? B is presumably not a definition but a hypothesis. If it is something other than a tautology, you must be able to explain 1. the quantitative impact on US wages 2. the actual mechanisms by which this occurs and you must be able to give a convincing qualitative account of how and why removal of this support to wages would make (more highly paid? less highly paid? both?) US workers more likely to reject the status quo. Is that clearer? Simon >Paul Bullock > > > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Simon Mohun" <s.mohun@QMUL.AC.UK> >To: <OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU> >Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 1:14 PM >Subject: Labour aristocracy > > > > >Paul B wrote: > > >What is actually clear is that relatively few producers/corporations in >the > > >world, lets say 300, headquartered in very few states lets say 10, but > > >mostly in the US, have a monopoly ( in the sensible sense of over 25% of >the > > >market ( UK Competition regs)), and that this 'monopoly' allows huge >profits > > >which are in part are used to provide payments to sections of the work >force > > >to ensure loyalty and stability to the system. > > > > I don't think this is actually clear. What sections of the work force are > > being referred to? My computations for the US, using BLS statistics for > > hourly wage rates of production workers in all sectors of the economy (83 > > per cent of employed workers), making very rough adjustments for direct > > taxes, social security contributions and receipt of state cash benefits, > > and deflating by the NDP deflator, seem to show that > > > > in 1978, real hourly product wages were 11.79 and by 2000 had risen to >11.97. > > > > A total of 18 cents of a 1996 dollar over 22 years doesn't seem like an > > increase which would ensure loyalty and stability to the system. > > > > For nonproduction workers (17 per cent of the workforce), real hourly > > product wages were 20.88 in 1978 and 34.89 in 2000. Is it these workers > > (with supervisory responsibilities) to which the labour aristocracy > > hypothesis refers? > > > > Simon > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- >-------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Simon Mohun > > Centre for Business Management, > > Queen Mary, University of London, > > Mile End Road, > > London E1 4NS, > > UK > > > > Tel: +44-(0)20-7882-5089 (direct); +44-(0)20-7882-3167 (Dept. Office); >Fax: > > +44-(0)20-7882-3615 > > Webpage: www.qmul.ac.uk/~ugte154/ > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- >-------------------------------------------------------------------- > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Simon Mohun Centre for Business Management, Queen Mary, University of London, Mile End Road, London E1 4NS, UK Tel: +44-(0)20-7882-5089 (direct); +44-(0)20-7882-3167 (Dept. Office); Fax: +44-(0)20-7882-3615 Webpage: www.qmul.ac.uk/~ugte154/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jan 09 2004 - 00:00:01 EST