Re: value and gender

["Devine, James" <jdevine@xxxxxxx>]

Gernot Köhler writes 
> this is further to some recent posts on surplus-value and 
> transfer value.
> A bit dry. Sorry, folks.

heck, pen-l can't be fascinating all the time!

> Jim Devine explained ... that there are:
> (1) "standard" Marxian surplus-value
> (2) the surplus-product of exploited direct producers in 
> other modes of production such as slavery and serfdom
> (3) pure transfer: looting of the periphery . . . There is no 
> increase in the global pool of surplus-value. [end of excerpt from JD]

> This reasoning implies the rejection of notions of unequal 
> exchange and
> periphery-to-center transfer value (a la Emmanuel or Amin) 
> and rejection of
> a "second form of surplus value" (a la Mandel).

Please remind me what Mandel's second form was. 
 
> Let's leave aside the debate about 
> periphery-to-center-of-the-world transfer
> value and look at a different dimension - namely, gender.
> 
> To my mind, there is a transfer value from women to men. As 
> Jim Devine calls
> looting of the periphery "pure transfer", the transfer I have 
> in mind here
> would have to be an impure transfer. Never mind. The female 
> to male transfer
> of value occurs within an existing pool of value and surplus-value. A
> micro-level  example is, as follows:
> 
> Given:
> (g1) One business, one entrepreneur, one product produced, 20 
> workers (10 men, 10 women)
> (g2) all workers produce the same product, using the same 
> materials and machinery, and having the same skills
> (g3) the market value of the product is 50 dollars per item
> (g4) 1000 items are produced per day, using all available labour in an
> 8-hour day
> (g5) the female wage is $7 per hour, the male wage is $10 per 
> hour (It is assumed that this wage difference is due to "institutional 
> factors" - i.e., embedded male chauvinism, and not due to differences in 
> skills and personal productivity.)
> (g6) materials are 20 dollars per item
 
> Calculation:
> (c1) total receipts of one day's production = 1000 * 50 
> dollars = 50,000 dollars
> (c2) total wages paid for one day =  1,360 dollars
> (namely, 10 males * 8 hours * 10 dollars = 800 dollars, plus, 
> 10 females * 8 hours * 7 dollars = 560 dollars)
> (c3) total materials = 1000 * 20 dollars = 20,000 dollars
> (c4) surplus value for one day SV = c1-c2-c3 =  28,640 dollars

> Gender Components:
> (c5) 10 females produced 500 items, leading to sales of 
> 25,000 dollars (500 * 50)
> (c6) 10 males produced 500 items, leading to sales of 25,000 dollars
> (500*50), same as females
> (c7) SV produced by females SVF = 14,440 dollars
> (sales less materials less wages = 25,000 - 10,000 - 560)
> (c8) SV produced by males SVM = 14,200 dollars
> (sales less materials less wages = 25,000 - 10,000 - 800)

> Conclusion;
> Since the women produced more SV (14,440) than the men 
> (14,200), the women
> subsidized the male wages and there was a transfer of value 
> from women to
> men. The amount of the transfer value was one half of the difference,
> namely, transfer value female to male T = ½  * (14,440-14,200) = 110
> dollars. Thus, within the pool of surplus-value a transfer of 
> value took place from women to men.
> 
> While 110 dollars may seem trivial in relation to the total product of
> 50,000 dollars per day, it is not trivial in relation to male 
> and female wages for the day.
> (c9) the fair wages for each gender group for the day would 
> have been c2 / 2 = 1360 / 2 = 680 dollars
> (c10) due to the transfer value, the male group gained 110/680 =  16.2
> percent over fair wages
> (c11) due to the transfer value, the female group lost 110/680 = 16.2
> percent from fair wages

> If  one changed the existing wages to the level of fair wages 
> by adjusting for transfer value, then
> (c12) the male group would lose 110/800 = 13.75 percent in wages , and
> (c13) the female group would gain  110/560 = 19.6 percent in wages.

> Summa: my point is that (1) transfer value is not a trivial 
> concept and (2) transfer of value takes place within a standard Marxist model 
> of a modern economy, even without imperialist looting and without islands 
> of non-modern modes of production

I wasn't saying that transfer value was trivial or that it only took place under imperialism. 

This case above is a case where the rate of surplus-value is different for different groups of workers (and could apply instead to different ethnic groups, e.g., Blacks vs. Whites in the USA).

In my article on the so-called "transformation problem" (in RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY, vol. 12, 1990. Paul Zarembka, ed.), I have the following equation for the transfer of value between sectors. Instead of center vs. periphery, it can be stated in terms of transfer between a dominant and a dominated group: 

TR1 = Vm d + S'(q1/q - 1) TV1 + D + (z1 - z) Vm tk1   (p. 31)

where TR1 = transfer of surplus-value to the dominant group
Vm = the value claim of a unit of money
d = deviation of dominant group's selling price over dominated group's price
S' = over-all rate of surplus-value
q1 = a measure of the organic composition in the dominant group.
q = the over-all measure of the organic composition
TV1 = total variable capital in the dominant group.
D = excess of rate of surplus-value of the dominant group over the dominated group's rate of surplus-value.
the last term refers to the role of unproductive labor.

In Gernot's example, d = 0, q1/q = 1 and the last term is irrelevant, so that

TR1 = D.

the only kind of transfer of value is due to unequal exchange of Emmanuel's type, though it can happen even if the "exchange" occurs within a factory, as in Gernot's example. 

Jim