Re: (OPE-L) Re: Unproductive Labour

From: Philip Dunn (pscumnud@DIRCON.CO.UK)
Date: Mon Nov 24 2003 - 07:46:26 EST

Hi Jerry

Quoting gerald_a_levy <gerald_a_levy@MSN.COM>:

> > 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,  thanks for describing what you see as "the big picture".   Now I
> have a much better idea of  (to use a popular expression) where you're
> coming from.
> Two brief responses:
> (1) Whether this is "real" is a question that can be addressed empirically.
> There have been a bunch of empirical studies, using national income
> accounts, that have concluded that there _has_ been a long-term growth
> of unproductive labour as a percentage of total wage-labour.  We are
> lucky to have most of the authors of those studies on this list so I'll
> leave it to them (should they choose) to explain those studies.
> (2) To comprehend "the big picture" I think you need to examine
> the process of capitalist competition and the transfer of surplus value
> among capitalist firms.  One also needs to comprehend how rent
> comes into this picture. These are Volume III topics.

If money is an equivalent then there must be an equality such as:

the value of the procuded commodity = the value of the money it sells for

Price value deviations are therefore impossible. Surplus value (in hours) is
equal to profit in dollars times the value of money (hours per dollar).  There
can be therfore no transfer of surplus value among capitalist firms. 

In view of this, why should I read Volume III?


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Nov 25 2003 - 00:00:01 EST