Rising Wages?

[RadioRaheem84]

One of the major criticisms lobbied at Marx is that real wages in the West rose from the time of his death until the late 70s where they stagnated, when he said they would fall because the accumulation process would bring them down.

How do we account for the real wage increase of that century span? Am I presuming too much? Is this is a neo-classical canard? Do classical economists fail to acknowledge the rest of the world in which the capitalists also had their hand in? Chomsky discounted this arguments as spurious since living standards rose for slaves in a span of a century when it was still legal but that's not an argument in favor of the practice.

This should be an easy answer but I guess I missed it. A little help. Thanks.

[ContrarianLemming]

Chomsky discounted this arguments as spurious since living standards rose for slaves in a span of a century when it was still legal but that's not an argument in favor of the practice.

This is the best answer
Living standards raised in Stalins Russia, does that make Stalinism good?
And people standard of living didn't increase because of private ownership ,it increased for a cavalcade of reasons, mostly human genuis through advancement in tech and mass movements to increase wages.

workers have always fought to increase wages, not leaders of capitalists, who fight tooth and nail against it.

[RadioRaheem84]

I forgot about class struggle. Good call.


mostly human genuis through advancement in tech... .I figured automation would help drive wages down?


Living standards raised in Stalins Russia, does that make Stalinism good?Let's demonize Stalinism to that extent.

[Zanthorus]

What about the rise in wages relative to the rise in profit?


Real wages may remain the same, they may even rise, nevertheless the relative wages may fall. Let us suppose, for instance, that all means of subsistence have fallen 2/3rds in price, while the day's wages have fallen but 1/3rd – for example, from three to two shillings. Although the worker can now get a greater amount of commodities with these two shillings than he formerly did with three shillings, yet his wages have decreased in proportion to the gain of the capitalist. The profit of the capitalist – the manufacturer's for instance – has increased one shilling, which means that for a smaller amount of exchange values, which he pays to the worker, the latter must produce a greater amount of exchange values than before. The share of capitals in proportion to the share of labor has risen. The distribution of social wealth between capital and labor has become still more unequal. The capitalist commands a greater amount of labor with the same capital. The power of the capitalist class over the working class has grown, the social position of the worker has become worse, has been forced down still another degree below that of the capitalist.

[RadioRaheem84]

Originally Posted by Wage Labour and Capital
Real wages may remain the same, they may even rise, nevertheless the relative wages may fall. Let us suppose, for instance, that all means of subsistence have fallen 2/3rds in price, while the day's wages have fallen but 1/3rd – for example, from three to two shillings. Although the worker can now get a greater amount of commodities with these two shillings than he formerly did with three shillings, yet his wages have decreased in proportion to the gain of the capitalist. The profit of the capitalist – the manufacturer's for instance – has increased one shilling, which means that for a smaller amount of exchange values, which he pays to the worker, the latter must produce a greater amount of exchange values than before. The share of capitals in proportion to the share of labor has risen. The distribution of social wealth between capital and labor has become still more unequal. The capitalist commands a greater amount of labor with the same capital. The power of the capitalist class over the working class has grown, the social position of the worker has become worse, has been forced down still another degree below that of the capitalist.

There we go! That's what I was looking for. Thanks :thumbup1:

[RadioRaheem84]

The power of the capitalist class over the working class has grown, the social position of the worker has become worse, has been forced down still another degree below that of the capitalist. This is important because even with all of the raises in standard of living and rising wages, the gap between the rich and poor has grown even more and the social relation even more so. Capitalist power was even stronger during the 50s than during the advent of capitalism in Marx's day.

I have to always remind myself, that it's always about the position and social relations. There were relatively higher standards to praise in Sweden's Olof Palme days, but that wasn't the point.

[Die Neue Zeit]

One of the major criticisms lobbied at Marx is that real wages in the West rose from the time of his death until the late 70s where they stagnated, when he said they would fall because the accumulation process would bring them down.

How do we account for the real wage increase of that century span? Am I presuming too much? Is this is a neo-classical canard? Do classical economists fail to acknowledge the rest of the world in which the capitalists also had their hand in? Chomsky discounted this arguments as spurious since living standards rose for slaves in a span of a century when it was still legal but that's not an argument in favor of the practice.

This should be an easy answer but I guess I missed it. A little help. Thanks.

Real wage increases occurred in only three spurts:

1) From the 1890s to 1914 (after the Long Depression - Marx's context - but before WWI)
2) Interwar years
3) Post-war Keynesian boom


What about the rise in wages relative to the rise in profit?

The Iron Law of Disproportionate Immiseration gives a more complete answer to the real wages question, and doesn't emphasize one phenomenon over another.

Contrary to the bourgeois-apologist notion that “a rising tide lifts all boats,” the motions of the three “free and social” markets of bourgeois-fied commodity production, besides which no other economic gods may stand, necessitate the prevalence of the very iron law of the disproportionate immiseration (that is, impoverishment), of an already exploited global labour:

1) In the “trickle-down” best of times, workers’ incomes do not rise as rapidly as the incomes of those above them, and while immiserated further by costs on the growing but hidden consumer debt slavery that supports this disproportionate immiseration, they can be subject to the disproportionately immiserating effects of inflation;

[Already above I go beyond what Marx said in Wage Labour and Capital (and also what Radio Raheem said after your post) by taking into account consumer debts and inflation.]

2) When rates of industrial profit fall during recessions and otherwise, workers’ incomes are fully subject to the disproportionately immiserating pressure coming from elsewhere in the “freely” and “socially” exploited labour market – namely from the reserved armies of the unemployed – and specifically unprotected workers’ incomes are fully subject to the disproportionately immiserating effects of inflation;
3) When rates of financial profit fall during recessions and otherwise, much of workers’ incomes are diverted to consumer and mortgage debt payments, while still fully subject to the disproportionately immiserating pressure coming from reserved armies of the unemployed and, for unprotected workers’ incomes, the disproportionately immiserating effects of inflation; and

[The fourth point below is a special case when the original Iron Law of Wages, which Marx criticized Lassalle for adopting as an economic theory, is indeed in effect.]

4) During depressions, the absolute impoverishment of workers’ incomes towards subsistence levels is in full effect.