Re: Estimating the surplus\Doug's question

["Fred B. Moseley" <fmoseley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003, paul phillips wrote:

> Devine, James wrote:
>
> >Hi, Fred.
> >
> >you write:
> >
> >
> >>spite of the loss of workers' power and stagnant real wages -
> >>because the
> >>ratio of unproductive to productive labor has continued to increase.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >A big question: _why_ does the ratio of unproductive to productive labor increase over time? if this ratio is squeezing profits, it seems that profit-seeking capitalists would make an effort to lower it. or is there some sort of technological or social imperative that pushes capitalists to increase the ratio anyway? or is it a matter of it being good for capitalists as individuals to raise the ratio even though it's bad for capital as a whole?
> >
> >why the ratio rises is important. For example, if we posit that demand-side stagnation has been the rule of late, that would push up the ratio (for a few years, at least) in that unproductive labor is typically overhead labor, while productive labor is laid off. However, this explanation doesn't fit the waves of "downsizing" (thinning out of management, etc.) that hit US business during the 1990s. (see below)
> >
> >
> >
> Jim,
>
> I tried to offer one suggestion in my post a few days ago.  In the
> 1970s, corporations attempted to restore the profit level through price
> increases (leading to a price-wage spiral) which was cut off by the
> recession of the 1980s.  Since that time, we have been in a period of
> demand constraint.  As a result, increasing productivity has been met by
> downsizing and wage restraint resulting in stagnant wages which leads,
> as you point out, to an underconsumption undertow.  Major corporations
> respond to this demand constraint by increasing  promotion, marketing
> and advertising thereby increasing the ratio of unproductive to
> productive labour.  But given globalisation and Asian competition, firms
> can't raise prices to match the increased cost of unproductive labour.
>  They respond by trying to cut managers, etc.  In the 1990s, they were
> aided by technological change in white collar work (i.e.
> computerization) which reduced the relative demand for/employment of
> unproductive labour. (My figures for Canada indicate a significant
> decline in the employment of certain types of secretarial and clerical
> labour in the early 1990s.)
> But  given the deflationary effect of global competition using low-wage
> 3rd world labour, 1st world corporations are unable to raise prices to
> restore (realized) profitability.  Thus, the profit recovery in the
> 1990s was only partial in the light of continuing need to increase
> unproductive selling/marketing expenditures despite the rise in
> productive worker productivity.  To the extent that the growth in
> non-productive worker productivity is on a declining projectory,   there
> is little to give hope for a new long-term, profit-based expansion based
> on technological change, at least in North America and Europe where the
> ratio of productive to unproductive labour is already so low.
>
> I think my read on this is similar to Fred's.  If not, I would be glad
> to hear, and if so, why?


Paul, yes, I think our readings are very similar.  Would you please send
me any articles that you have written on this subject (or the
references)?  I look forward to further discussion.

Comradely,
Fred