From: Paul Zarembka (zarembka@BUFFALO.EDU)
Date: Tue Jan 06 2004 - 23:19:56 EST
--On Tuesday, January 06, 2004 2:07 PM +0000 Simon Mohun <s.mohun@QMUL.AC.UK> wrote: > 1. I think of the rate of surplus value as an overall macroeconomic > category applying to the whole economy, and not applicable to individual > production processes. (But I know that many disagree with this.) Simon, I'm not sure what you mean when you say that s.v. may not be applicalbe to individual production processes -- you're thinking of value/value-form issues, the transformation problem? > 2. Given 1, then the issue revolves round comparisons of productivity. > Have you got a citation for the US study? Rather than the U.S. Senate, it was U.S. Tariff Commission, "Economic factors affecting the Use of Items 807.00 and 806.30 of the Tariff Schedules of the U.S." Washington, D.C., TC Publications 339, 1970. I'm still rather astonished that you could be thinking that U.S. workers may be more exploited the Third World workers. I don't get it. If wages are 5-20% of the U.S. levels, how is productivity in mfg. going to be 20 to 5 times higher in the U.S. when evidence suggests +/- 10% differentials. There's a whole movement about what workers in El Salvador, Bangladesh, etc. experience and its unbelievable (and I'm not glorifying U.S. working class conditions in writing this). They maybe work 14 hours and get back 20 minutes. Paul *********************************************************************** RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY, Paul Zarembka, editor, Elsevier Science ******************** http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 08 2004 - 00:00:00 EST