Re: They're still waiting for the procrastinating shopper

["Henry C.K. Liu" <hliu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

[ converted from html ]



Mark Jones wrote:

>Henry C.K. Liu wrote:
>
>
>
>>China exported 4.07 billion pairs of shoes in 2001, up 2.55 percent from
>>the previous year. But the value of those exports, US$10.1 billion, was
>>an increase of only 2.48 percent over 2000. Actual value growth per
>>unit, then, was a negative. Guangdong province is China's largest
>>shoe-making region, with annual production at around three billion
>>pairs, accounting for almost a third of the world's total. Assuming the
>>number of Chinese workers making shoes to be constant, Chinese
>>productivity dropped in the shoe industry in 2001. The only way
>>productivity could have remained the same or improved would have been if
>>the Chinese shoe industry had cut workers, thus contributing to China's
>>growing unemployment problem.
>>
>>
>>
>
>Henry, if actual value growth declined while output grew, how does that
>equal a fall in productivity? It equals a fall in the price of labour, ie a
>decline in the cost of a factor of production, since shoes are part of the
>consumption-basket which determines the value of labour-power. So that fall
>in the value of output is a form of appearance of an increase in
>productivity, no?
>
>Mark
>
Mark, you have to remember we are talking about exports, so these shoes
are not part of the consumption basket in China.   In the above example,
more shoes have to be made to earn the same amount of dollars. Thus in
dollar terms, productivity dropped..  And to keep productivity constant,
some workers would have to be laid off for the same dollar sales volume.
 The point here is that for export, productivity means dollars earned,
not goods produced.

Henry


~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.