A Rough Estimate of the Value of Labor

[AvanteRedGarde]

A rough estimate of the value of labor by Serve the People of IRTR



(originally published 30 June 2005)


(monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com)


Let’s try to calculate the value of average abstract socially necessary labor. This will give us an idea of how much people produce and who is exploited.


Now that virtually the entire world’s economy is integrated into one giant imperialist formation, we can use Comrade Marx’s labor theory of value to determine what labor is worth. Comrade Marx pointed out that labor is the substance of value. He said that the number of hours of average abstract socially necessary labor needed to produce a commodity represents its value. That means labor of average productivity under the given working conditions for the specified type of work. Therefore, if traded at value, one hour of labor put into harvesting parsnips is exchangeable against one hour of assembling washing machines (if the labor in both cases is of average productivity).


The nominal GDP of the entire world was $31.9 trillion in 2002. (1) This figure represents everything produced in the world, including services (which tend to be overvalued), in a year’s time. The population is about 6.4 billion people. Assume that 2/3 of them work full time on a typical U$ schedule of 2000 hours per year. Then the value of average labor is $7500 per year, or about $3.75 per hour. (Slightly higher, actually, since the world’s population was a bit lower in 2002 than it is today.)


Elsewhere I have seen estimates from the UN that the world’s nominal GDP in 2005 is about $36 trillion. That would put the value of labor at $8400 per year, or $4.20 per hour.


What is the implication? In the U$, the minimum wage is $5.15 per hour, and even higher in some states and cities. If average labor is worth $4.20, then even people making the minimum wage are overpaid on average by about 23%. The average wage in the U$ is about $18 per hour, which is more than 4 times the value of labor.


This little exercise shows that no one legally working in the U$ is likely to be exploited. On the contrary, U$ workers receive superprofits extracted from the Third World by the imperialists and thus benefit from imperialist exploitation. The same goes for most Western European countries, where the minimum wage is generally even higher than in the U$.


To disprove this claim, it would be necessary to show that U$ workers were more productive than average. The truth is that they are probably less productive than the international average, since the intensity of labor tends to be much higher in the Third World.


But there is exploitation in the U$. Chinese garment workers illegally employed in sweatshops for $1.50 an hour and Mexican agricultural workers illegally employed at similar wages are exploited. Possibly some prisoners are exploited as well, although the calculations are a little more difficult in that case. And there may be some isolated Stakhanovites who are so far above the average in productivity that they count as exploited.


Even so, the vast majority of Amerikkkans are clearly not exploited. They are, in fact, exploiters.
Notes.
1. hhttp://hdr.undp.org/statistics/data/indic/indic_121_1_1.html.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

A rough estimate of the value of labor by Serve the People of IRTR



(originally published 30 June 2005)


(monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com)


Let’s try to calculate the value of average abstract socially necessary labor. This will give us an idea of how much people produce and who is exploited.


Now that virtually the entire world’s economy is integrated into one giant imperialist formation, we can use Comrade Marx’s labor theory of value to determine what labor is worth. Comrade Marx pointed out that labor is the substance of value. He said that the number of hours of average abstract socially necessary labor needed to produce a commodity represents its value. That means labor of average productivity under the given working conditions for the specified type of work. Therefore, if traded at value, one hour of labor put into harvesting parsnips is exchangeable against one hour of assembling washing machines (if the labor in both cases is of average productivity).


The nominal GDP of the entire world was $31.9 trillion in 2002. (1) This figure represents everything produced in the world, including services (which tend to be overvalued), in a year’s time. The population is about 6.4 billion people. Assume that 2/3 of them work full time on a typical U$ schedule of 2000 hours per year. Then the value of average labor is $7500 per year, or about $3.75 per hour. (Slightly higher, actually, since the world’s population was a bit lower in 2002 than it is today.)


Elsewhere I have seen estimates from the UN that the world’s nominal GDP in 2005 is about $36 trillion. That would put the value of labor at $8400 per year, or $4.20 per hour.


What is the implication? In the U$, the minimum wage is $5.15 per hour, and even higher in some states and cities. If average labor is worth $4.20, then even people making the minimum wage are overpaid on average by about 23%. The average wage in the U$ is about $18 per hour, which is more than 4 times the value of labor.


This little exercise shows that no one legally working in the U$ is likely to be exploited. On the contrary, U$ workers receive superprofits extracted from the Third World by the imperialists and thus benefit from imperialist exploitation. The same goes for most Western European countries, where the minimum wage is generally even higher than in the U$.


To disprove this claim, it would be necessary to show that U$ workers were more productive than average. The truth is that they are probably less productive than the international average, since the intensity of labor tends to be much higher in the Third World.


But there is exploitation in the U$. Chinese garment workers illegally employed in sweatshops for $1.50 an hour and Mexican agricultural workers illegally employed at similar wages are exploited. Possibly some prisoners are exploited as well, although the calculations are a little more difficult in that case. And there may be some isolated Stakhanovites who are so far above the average in productivity that they count as exploited.


Even so, the vast majority of Amerikkkans are clearly not exploited. They are, in fact, exploiters.
Notes.
1. hhttp://hdr.undp.org/statistics/data/indic/indic_121_1_1.html.

Just a few quick notes, I'll poke more holes in it later. 1, the labour force is 3 billion, not the 4.5 billion this assumes. 2, hundreds of millions of the workers in the world are peasants, many engaged in subsistence agriculture.

[AvanteRedGarde]

1) On what specific basis are you saying that only half of the world is engaged in productive labor.

2) I really wonder how many people are simply subsistence farmers and how many produce goods which end up being sold in national and international markets.

I don't deny that feudalism still exists, but is often the case, it is held in place specifically by imperialism and becomes of functional part of the overall system. In any case, do you have any statistics on how many peasants are basically cut off from international markets?

In any case, this is a rough estimate and the author admits a number of things that could make the real value of labor higher or lower. Even if the estimate is off by 100%, which is less likely than say 50%, then the value of labor is $9.40. This would still make the majority of people in American workers exploiters.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

1) On what specific basis are you saying that only half of the world is engaged in productive labor.

I'm basing it on this: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2095rank.html


2) I really wonder how many people are simply subsistence farmers and how many produce goods which end up being sold in national and international markets. Me too, but I can't really find any statistics. Here's what I do know: there are 800 million peasants in the 5 countries with the most peasants: China, India, Indonesia, Bangladesh, and Nigeria. I didn't spend much time searching, but as far as India, there 275 million peasants, and sixty percent of them own less than one acre. There are 355 million peasants in China, and almost all of them are on the subsistence level. On the continent of Africa, there are 550 million peasants. In Latin America there are about 110 million. That alone is 1.3 billion peasants, and we still have a couple billion people that I haven't looked up statistics for. In addition to peasants, we have 200 million unemployed.


In any case, this is a rough estimate and the author admits a number of things that could make the real value of labor higher or lower. Even if the estimate is off by 100%, which is less likely than say 50%, then the value of labor is $9.40. This would still make the majority of people in American workers exploiters.With updated statistics including 2008 figures for gdp, wages, labor force, occupation and all of that, and using their own procedure, we get a value for labor of $18.30. The average wage in the US is like $14. This would indicate that American workers are actually exploited less than the low rate I based on the census information I posted in your other thread.

Not that I regard that as accurate anyway, this whole attempt is ridiculous. It makes too many assumptions in place of real data.

[AvanteRedGarde]

Ok, so I did the math. Adjusting for the labor force given by the CIA fact book, and assuming I didn't make any mistakes in the math, the value of labor came out to around $5.68.

Would you agree to this?? Seems about right to me. Hell, like I said, even if the original rough estimate was off by 100%, we could still assume that the majority of American workers in fact absorbed surplus value.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Ok, so I did the math. Adjusting for the labor force given by the CIA fact book, and assuming I didn't make any mistakes in the math, the value of labor came out to around $5.68.

Would you agree to this?? Seems about right to me. Hell, like I said, even if the original rough estimate was off by 100%, we could still assume that the majority of American workers in fact absorbed surplus value.

I'd like to see how you managed $5.68, 'cause I got $18.30. Anyway, like I said, trying to calculate the average value produced is idiotic anyway.

[AvanteRedGarde]

How'd you get $18.

I'm taking the Global GDP (36 trillion or 36,000,000,000,000) and dividing it by the number of workers (3,167,000,000). This result in the total value created each year ( something like 11,???) and dividing that by 2000 hours. This results in a value of labor being $5.68 an hour. Am I doing this wrong.

Why is trying to figure out a value of labor idiotic? Wouldn't that demystify a lot of things?

[jake williams]

Then there's the obvious ridiculousness of the implication that capitalist markets sensibly determine the relative values of production, goods, service and labour in the entire world economy, in USD - that is, that one can easily determine everything about how much people produce and how much people are paid from figures you get from the World Bank and some long division.

This is a very strange interpretation of the LTV - among other things, like, say, math.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

How'd you get $18.

I'm taking the Global GDP (36 trillion or 36,000,000,000,000) and dividing it by the number of workers (3,167,000,000). This result in the total value created each year ( something like 11,???) and dividing that by 2000 hours. This results in a value of labor being $5.68 an hour. Am I doing this wrong.

Why is trying to figure out a value of labor idiotic? Wouldn't that demystify a lot of things?

You're using old figures and including peasants who are mostly subsistence or near subsistence. You're also including the unemployed. Subtract those and the labor force is something like 1.7 billion people. 2008 GDP is 62,250,000,000,000. Go through the same procedure they use, you get $18.30.

It's stupid because it rests on a ton of assumptions. Reality is probably going to be faaaar different from any result we'll get from doing this.


This is a very strange interpretation of the LTV - among other things, like, say, math.

Well...not really. One of the most important facts of the LTV is that total prices = total value.

[jake williams]

Well...not really. One of the most important facts of the LTV is that total prices = total value.
Unless I'm much mistaken it's a different conception of prices.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Unless I'm much mistaken it's a different conception of prices.

What do you mean?

[AvanteRedGarde]

I think your math is funny. First of all, do you think bananas and tomatoes are picked by anyone but subsistence farmers. These things, as well as coca, tobacco, sugar, are similarly produced in large part by landless and/or small farmers. Marx described the proletariat as being pushed into subsistence and sub subsistence wages. It's sounds like you are describing part of the proletariat to me.

In any case, your numbers are funny. Out of 6.5 billion people, you think 1.7 or a quarter are engaged in the economy? This is outrageous. To put it into perspective, 63% of people in America are engaged in the economy (i.e working) . (1) Another author states that in 2000, their were 1.46 billion people working just the Americas, Europe, Africa and Japan (basically the world minus the former Soviet Bloc, China, and India). (2)

1 http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_people_are_employed_in_the_United_States
2 http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/5523

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

I think your math is funny. First of all, do you think bananas and tomatoes are picked by anyone but subsistence farmers. These things, as well as coca, tobacco, sugar, are similarly produced in large part by landless and/or small farmers. Marx described the proletariat as being pushed into subsistence and sub subsistence wages. It's sounds like you are describing part of the proletariat to me.

I don't think you understand the term "subsistence farmer." A subsistence farmer is a farmer that grows for his own personal consumption and only enough to feed himself and his family. They make up a very large percentage of the workforce. Wage earning agricultural workers on the other hand are an extremely small minority of agricultural workers. Only 700,000 out of 275 million agricultural workers in India work for companies, for example. The thing about corporate employed farmers is that the corporations have better equipment, land, etc, so they're more productive. In the US for example, corporations own 1% of the farms but make up 14% of our agricultural output.


In any case, your numbers are funny. Out of 6.5 billion people, you think 1.7 or a quarter are engaged in the economy? This is outrageous. To put it into perspective, 63% of people in America are engaged in the economy (i.e working) . (1) Another author states that in 2000, their were 1.46 billion people working just the Americas, Europe, Africa and Japan (basically the world minus the former Soviet Bloc, China, and India). (2)

1 http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_people_are_employed_in_the_United_States
2 http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/5523No, I think there are 3.2 billion workers, but a large fraction of them are peasants that produce no or a negligible amount of value, and another 200 million of them are unemployed. You can add 300 million to the 1.7 billion figure that I came up with and American workers will still be exploited according to the procedure they used.

[bcbm]

Since you can't seem to get over this "proving first-worlders are exploited and thus class enemies" thing, let's go with it. Let's say you're right. What do first world communists do?

[ls]

I think your math is funny. First of all, do you think bananas and tomatoes are picked by anyone but subsistence farmers. These things, as well as coca, tobacco, sugar, are similarly produced in large part by landless and/or small farmers. Marx described the proletariat as being pushed into subsistence and sub subsistence wages. It's sounds like you are describing part of the proletariat to me.

In any case, your numbers are funny. Out of 6.5 billion people, you think 1.7 or a quarter are engaged in the economy? This is outrageous. To put it into perspective, 63% of people in America are engaged in the economy (i.e working) . (1) Another author states that in 2000, their were 1.46 billion people working just the Americas, Europe, Africa and Japan (basically the world minus the former Soviet Bloc, China, and India). (2)

1 http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_people_are_employed_in_the_United_States
2 http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/5523

I think your numbers/maths are entirely pointless and devoid of any relevant class-struggle based perspective that could potentially help lead to the liberation of the proletariat, in the third world countries you pretend to care so much about, third worldism and anarcho-stalinism are the most pointless currents of anything.

[AvanteRedGarde]

I don't think you understand the term "subsistence farmer." A subsistence farmer is a farmer that grows for his own personal consumption and only enough to feed himself and his family. They make up a very large percentage of the workforce. Wage earning agricultural workers on the other hand are an extremely small minority of agricultural workers. Only 700,000 out of 275 million agricultural workers in India work for companies, for example. The thing about corporate employed farmers is that the corporations have better equipment, land, etc, so they're more productive. In the US for example, corporations own 1% of the farms but make up 14% of our agricultural output.

I think your understanding of subsistence farming is ahistorical and lacking real world context.

The first problem is that you seem to assume that subsistence farming is merely a primitive mode of production, unrelated to the current one. That is patently false in that more often than not, imperialism stabilizes and promotes semi-feudalism. Capitalism, mechanization, etc isn't going to sweep through the countryside, insofar as it won't benefit the imperialists.

Second, subsistence farmers, even when engaged minimally in the market, still must pay taxes and rents, fundamentally paid for through embedded labor to regimes again enabled and propped up by imperialism.

Third, as land available to subsistence farmers decreases due to the privatization of land, such farmers are either left without land and thus must contract out their labor or they are left with less land to farm for their own use.

This latter case has produced a version of sub subsistence farming, in which additional labor must be expended, often by the household, to create commodities sold on the market. In South America, a lot of trinkets sold to tourists are made this way. Additionally, insofar as one's plot of land won't feed a family, members of that family often look for waged work.

As is often the case, subsistence can neither be covered through waged work nor farming alone. Therefore, you have a situation where someone might be a waged worker part of the year and a subsistence farmer another. Another widely utilized option is that girls will go looking for work in factories in cities. In any case, as is often the case, since imperialism barely covers the cost of labor power for Third World workers, subsistence farming must make up the rest.

Moreover, the whole latter part of this conversation is predicated that subsistence farmers are counted as part of the 'labor force' according the the CIA Factbook. It is likely the case that those who engage minimally in the market were already excluded from this number already. What is more likely is that the total world population consists of around 1.7 billion subsistence farmers (1.4 from Asia, Africa, and Latin America) whom are to varying degrees engaged into the market (and increasingly so in various ways). From this we are left with a population of 5 billion people, over half engaged in the market (for simplicities sake, 2.5 b). This comes to a V of L of $7.20, still making the vast majority of American workers exploiters. Like I said, funny math on your part.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

I think your understanding of subsistence farming is ahistorical and lacking real world context.

My understanding is based on the definition of the word(from dictionary.com): farming whose products are intended to provide for the basic needs of the farmer, with little surplus for marketing.


The first problem is that you seem to assume that subsistence farming is merely a primitive mode of production, unrelated to the current one. That is patently false in that more often than not, imperialism stabilizes and promotes semi-feudalism. Capitalism, mechanization, etc isn't going to sweep through the countryside, insofar as it won't benefit the imperialists.

This means nothing. Unemployment is connected with capitalism too, it doesn't change the fact that the unemployed aren't creating any value.



Third, as land available to subsistence farmers decreases due to the privatization of land, such farmers are either left without land and thus must contract out their labor or they are left with less land to farm for their own use.
I think we all understand this.


This latter case has produced a version of sub subsistence farming, in which additional labor must be expended, often by the household, to create commodities sold on the market. In South America, a lot of trinkets sold to tourists are made this way. Additionally, insofar as one's plot of land won't feed a family, members of that family often look for waged work.And?


As is often the case, subsistence can neither be covered through waged work nor farming alone. Therefore, you have a situation where someone might be a waged worker part of the year and a subsistence farmer another. Another widely utilized option is that girls will go looking for work in factories in cities. In any case, as is often the case, since imperialism barely covers the cost of labor power for Third World workers, subsistence farming must make up the rest.
There isn't even enough wage work in the countries I mentioned to make this possible. Girls working in factories would have been counted in the manufacturing sector, so that point is mute. The statistics say there are hundreds of millions of peasants. I'm gonna go by the statistics.


Moreover, the whole latter part of this conversation is predicated that subsistence farmers are counted as part of the 'labor force' according the the CIA Factbook. It is likely the case that those who engage minimally in the market were already excluded from this number already. No, I checked this already before I posted it.


What is more likely is that the total world population consists of around 1.7 billion subsistence farmers (1.4 from Asia, Africa, and Latin America) whom are to varying degrees engaged into the market (and increasingly so in various ways). From this we are left with a population of 5 billion people, over half engaged in the market (for simplicities sake, 2.5 b). This comes to a V of L of $7.20, still making the vast majority of American workers exploiters. Like I said, funny math on your part.Assumption, assumptions, assumptions... We already have the real figure for the labor force, your assumption for "simplicities sake" is just wrong. The lengths you will go to make it appear that American workers are exploiters is what's funny.

[AvanteRedGarde]

Like I said, your understanding of subsistence farming is ahistorical. Workers could very well be subsistence farmer while also producing for the market, either through agricultural surplus or more likely through 'cottage industries.'

In any case, where exactly are the citations for these statistics?

[AvanteRedGarde]

Since you can't seem to get over this "proving first-worlders are exploited and thus class enemies" thing, let's go with it. Let's say you're right. What do first world communists do?

More often than not, First World 'Communists' are just more nuanced apologists for imperialism.

For those genuine revolutionaries, I would say work to advance class struggle of the world's exploited against the capitalist imperialist system. Pretty open ended if you ask me.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Like I said, your understanding of subsistence farming is ahistorical. Workers could very well be subsistence farmer while also producing for the market, either through agricultural surplus or more likely through 'cottage industries.'

In any case, where exactly are the citations for these statistics?

It's not ahistorical, it's the damn definition. The definition of a subsistence farmer is a worker who produces little for the market. This means they either produce no value or a negligible amount of value.

As far as statistics, which specific ones do you want the source for?

[AvanteRedGarde]

Me: Moreover, the whole latter part of this conversation is predicated that subsistence farmers are counted as part of the 'labor force' according the the CIA Factbook. It is likely the case that those who engage minimally in the market were already excluded from this number already.

You: No, I checked this already before I posted it.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Me: Moreover, the whole latter part of this conversation is predicated that subsistence farmers are counted as part of the 'labor force' according the the CIA Factbook. It is likely the case that those who engage minimally in the market were already excluded from this number already.

You: No, I checked this already before I posted it.

Publications always include subsistence farmers as part of the labor force. All you really have to do is type "subsistence farmers workforce" or something along those lines into google and you'll get tons of articles proving this.

[AvanteRedGarde]

I'm lazy, just provide a link.

[bcbm]

More often than not, First World 'Communists' are just more nuanced apologists for imperialism.

Gee, didn't see that one coming.


For those genuine revolutionaries, I would say work to advance class struggle of the world's exploited against the capitalist imperialist system. Pretty open ended if you ask me.

And I certainly didn't expect you to be vague to the point of meaninglessness either. But really, cut the bullshit and start being more concrete. What can "genuine revolutionaries" in the first world do to "advance class struggle of the world's exploited" in concrete, specific, day-to-day terms?

[benhur]

Gee, didn't see that one coming.



And I certainly didn't expect you to be vague to the point of meaninglessness either. But really, cut the bullshit and start being more concrete. What can "genuine revolutionaries" in the first world do to "advance class struggle of the world's exploited" in concrete, specific, day-to-day terms?

Well,

# they can stop discriminating against fellow workers based on class, race, nationality.

# They can stop buying the 'war on terror' and related bull that media feeds them.

# They can stop voting for reactionaries like Obama, Bush, and the like.

# They can stop buying 'foreign workers stole my job' bull that their politicians and media feed them.

# They can give up their prejudice regarding socialism (which really shows when they say socialism=stalin=evil), and stop their blind worship of cappies and capitalism.

# They can drop their jingoistic attitude toward countries like Cuba.

# Finally, they can always pack their bags and go to third-world countries for a little activism, doing which they not only gain experience but new associations in the leftist circles. Let them fight for them, instead of merely lecturing them from the comfort of their cozy little homes.

Happy now?

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Well,

# they can stop discriminating against fellow workers based on class, race, nationality.

Class collaboration? Are you sure you aren't a fascist?


# They can stop buying the 'war on terror' and related bull that media feeds them.

# They can stop voting for reactionaries like Obama, Bush, and the like.

# They can stop buying 'foreign workers stole my job' bull that their politicians and media feed them.

# They can give up their prejudice regarding socialism (which really shows when they say socialism=stalin=evil), and stop their blind worship of cappies and capitalism.

# They can drop their jingoistic attitude toward countries like Cuba.


So which genuine revolutionaries hold these views? Perhaps you just thought this was a good opportunity to show how reactionary those exploiter first world workers are?


# Finally, they can always pack their bags and go to third-world countries for a little activism, doing which they not only gain experience but new associations in the leftist circles. Let them fight for them, instead of merely lecturing them from the comfort of their cozy little homes.Unless you're typing this from the heart of Africa or something, isn't this a bit hypocritical?

[bcbm]

Happy now?

No because you clearly didn't comprehend the question.

[JJM 777]

the value of average labor is $7500 per year, or about $3.75 per hour (...) or $4.20 per hour.
In the U$, the minimum wage is $5.15 per hour, (...) so, the vast majority of Amerikkkans are clearly not exploited. They are, in fact, exploiters.
Even with these calculations, the vast majority of the-richest-country-on-the-planet is exploited, because their income is barely enough for the basic living costs in USA, food and housing and medical services and transport between home and work. So the money goes very quickly to exploiters such as overpriced apartment rents, overpriced medical services, food companies etc.

Politically speaking, the majority of Americans are exploiters, because they don't vote to end the American exploitation and military destruction of the Third World.

[Luís Henrique]

Let’s try to calculate the value of average abstract socially necessary labor. This will give us an idea of how much people produce and who is exploited.

Labour is not a commodity, therefore it has no value. What is being calculated here is the value of the average production of workers.


Now that virtually the entire world’s economy is integrated into one giant imperialist formation, we can use Comrade Marx’s labor theory of value to determine what labor is worth. Comrade Marx pointed out that labor is the substance of value. He said that the number of hours of average abstract socially necessary labor needed to produce a commodity represents its value. That means labor of average productivity under the given working conditions for the specified type of work. Therefore, if traded at value, one hour of labor put into harvesting parsnips is exchangeable against one hour of assembling washing machines (if the labor in both cases is of average productivity).

OK.


The nominal GDP of the entire world was $31.9 trillion in 2002. (1) This figure represents everything produced in the world, including services (which tend to be overvalued), in a year’s time. The population is about 6.4 billion people. Assume that 2/3 of them work full time on a typical U$ schedule of 2000 hours per year. Then the value of average labor is $7500 per year, or about $3.75 per hour. (Slightly higher, actually, since the world’s population was a bit lower in 2002 than it is today.)

By no means 2/3 of the world population is engaged in production.

First, there are those under and overage. Then, housewives and other unpaid providers of personal services. Then, the unemployed. Then those who don't produce commodities (civil servants, salespeople, bank clerks, teachers, etc). All these amount to much more than 1/3 of the population, perhaps more than 50%.

A better calculation would then be, 3 billion people working about 2,400 hour a year. That would give us an average product of US$ 4.81 per hour per worker.


What is the implication? In the U$, the minimum wage is $5.15 per hour, and even higher in some states and cities. If average labor is worth $4.20, then even people making the minimum wage are overpaid on average by about 23%. The average wage in the U$ is about $18 per hour, which is more than 4 times the value of labor.

This little exercise shows that no one legally working in the U$ is likely to be exploited. On the contrary, U$ workers receive superprofits extracted from the Third World by the imperialists and thus benefit from imperialist exploitation. The same goes for most Western European countries, where the minimum wage is generally even higher than in the U$.

This supposes that the productivity of labour in the United States and Western Europe is similar to the world average. Is it?


To disprove this claim, it would be necessary to show that U$ workers were more productive than average.

Exactly.


The truth is that they are probably less productive than the international average, since the intensity of labor tends to be much higher in the Third World.

And then comes the utter demonstration of complete ignorance. Productivity of labour is not intensity of labour, nor is it a function of intensity of labour.

Productivity of labour is a function of capital. You can have 100 workers ploughing a field manually, or you can have one worker doing the same task with a tractor. If they produce the same, which is likely, the productivity of the tractor driver is a hundred times higher than that of each manual plougher. Evidently this allows, a) a lower labour intensity; b) a higher wage; c) higher profits even with a lower labour intensity and a higher wage.

So we can have our tractor driver working 2,000 hours/year instead of 2,500, and earning 18 times more - but, in 2,000 hours, he produces 80 times more than each plougher in 2,500 hours. So his product is, say, 80,000 while his salary is 1,800, while the manual ploughers' product is 100,000 (1,000 each) while their salary is 10,000 (100 each). Thence the tractor driver is in fact more, not less, exploited than the manual ploughers, as his unpaid labour is 78,200 in 80,000 - 97.75% -, and the unpaid labour of the manual ploughers is 90,000 in 100,000 (900 in 1,000 for each of them) - 90%.

Luís Henrique

[cyu]

Politically speaking, the majority of Americans are exploiters, because they don't vote to end the American exploitation and military destruction of the Third World.

I wouldn't exactly call them exploiters, but most of the ones that don't are certainly dupes. Why are they dupes? Well, one of the purposes of the capitalist owned and controlled mass media in any capitalist society is to fool the population into continued support of their own exploitation.

It's not just capitalist "democracies" of course. In any society where the mass media is controlled by a tiny minority, then they will use it to dupe the general population. That's how your standard authoritarian regime is able to win large majorities in their sham elections.

The only solution I see is for communities to assume democratic control of their local mass media outlets.