Re: Productive Labor

[glevy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

>     In discussing productive and unproductive labor, one must from the
> beginning constantly remind oneself that the distinction is not a moral
> distinction. Street drugs are commodities. A commodity, of course, can be a
> service as well as a product, and hence a mafia hit man when he murders 
> someone
> for a wage is performing productive labor. Any labor that produces surplus
> value is productive. I'm not trying to produce a very coherent positive
> statement here but merely raising a warning sign.
>         Carrol Cox

The questions that Carrol raises above are very interesting. In this post
I'm going to evade the questions concerning whether the sellers of drugs
and mafia hit men (should be people) are productive  or unproductive of
surplus value. Instead, I will suggest some ideas concerning these types
of activities and how they are *measured*.  Both types of activities are
part of the so-called "underground economy" and the so-called "informal
sector" of the economy. Clearly, the sum total of underground market
activities (understood here as those who receive unreported income) is a
*very real and important part* of our actual economy. The labor employed
in this sector is a very significant part of the work force (although
they are not counted by the government as being part of the labor force)
and the profit earned by employers in this sector is staggering!

The above has very important implications for our understanding of
national income statistics and some other government statistics as well,
such as the official unemployment rate.  National income statistics, of
necessity, must either ignore this sector or make estimates of economic
activities in this sector based on the very incomplete information that
they have regarding this sector.

This gives rise to a source of inaccuracy in national income accounting.
Marxists who attempt to use the statistics generated by the state (or
other sources) must be aware of the limitations and assumptions of the
statistics that they are examining. Does this mean that we should not do
empirical work? No. It means, instead, that we have to do that empirical
work with our eyes wide open and aware of all possible problems and
limitations of the statistical methods and data that we employ.
It also means that the numbers that we receive concerning some forms of
economic activities can never be complete within the context of a
capitalist economy.

Jerry


     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

     ------------------