From: John Holloway (johnholloway@PRODIGY.NET.MX)
Date: Tue Jan 06 2004 - 09:36:25 EST
Paul B. says:
>IT IS TRUE THAT EVEN THE POOR IN THE US HAVE TENDED TO LIVE BETTER THAN THE
>MOST MISERABLE IN THE OPPRESSED STATES
What on earth is an "oppressed state", as opposed to an "unoppressed
state"???
Greetings to all,
John
----------
>From: Paul Bullock <paulbullock@EBMS-LTD.CO.UK>
>To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU
>Subject: Re: [OPE-L] Labour aristocracy
>Date: Mon, Jan 5, 2004, 5:18 PM
>
>SIMON,
>
>WHAT IS 'ACTUALLY UNCLEAR' IS THE POINT YOU WISH TO MAKE. 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.
>
>WHENYOU MOVE TO NON PRODUCTION WORKERS YOU ABANDON SKILLED, HIGHER PAID,
>PRODUCTION WORKERS, AND INCLUDE LOW PAID SERVICE WORKERS . WHY?
>
>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.
>
>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/
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jan 10 2004 - 00:00:01 EST