Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site topaz.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!packard!topaz!josh
From: josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Capitalist production
Message-ID: <1064@topaz.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 28-Mar-85 16:50:16 EST
Article-I.D.: topaz.1064
Posted: Thu Mar 28 16:50:16 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 29-Mar-85 01:50:38 EST
References: <380@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP>
Reply-To: josh@topaz.UUCP (J Storrs Hall)
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 75
Summary: 

In article <380@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes:
>From JoSH:
>> Laura has, perhaps without intending to, put her finger on the very
>> reason that people *do* work for wages (and value "having a job" so
>> highly).  Why indeed become a "wage slave"?  In a word: security.
>> ...
>
>It's not often one finds such a clear depiction of the fantasy world
>in which a good many libertarians evidently dwell.  The workers,
>indeed, make an order of magnitude more than the capitalists because
>there are two orders of magnitude more workers than capitalists.

Carnes and I part company here-- I think his quaint ideas of class oppression
and capitalist "exploitation" are the fantasy world.  The only actual
figures I know off hand are that in the Birmingham, Ala, area,
US Steel has 5000 employees and 7000 stockholders.

>Most of workers' income goes to basic living expenses and is not
>available to invest in large quantities of stocks, bonds, trusts, and
>real estate. 

According to my almanac, per capita income in the US (this includes 
children, so it's not the average wage income) for employed persons
is $7019, of which $2413 goes to TAXES.  So we find that the worker
is somehow managing to live without 34% of his income.  As we seem to agree
that the workers make 10 times the capitalists overall, and assuming
that the capitalists are getting a 10% return on their holdings, then
if not for the government, the workers could buy the capitalists out
completely in just under three years--*with no reduction in their
standard of living*.

> I'd like to ask the local janitor if his preference for
>security is the real reason he doesn't just save up his money and buy
>a controlling interest in IBM, but I'm afraid of getting punched out.

Ask him instead what he would do if you gave him $2413, and see if he
says "buy IBM stock".

>I wonder if JoSH has calculated how long it would take a typical
>worker to save enough money so that he can live comfortably on his
>"unearned" income. 

12 years.
The worker, or rather each member of his family, has a net income
of $4606 (total minus taxes).  If not for the GOVERNMENT, he could
invest $2413 per year without any reduction in living standard.
His equity (per family member) is:
1st year: 2413
2nd Year: 5067  (remember, he's already making 10% on what's invested)
3rd: 7987 4th: 11198 5th: 14731 6th: 18617 7th: 22892 8th: 27594
9th: 32767 10th: 38457 11th: 44715 12th year: 51600, from which
he makes an annual income of $5160, a bit better than before.
(all these figures in 1979 dollars).  (World Almanac 1981)

>The outcome of capitalism in the US is not legions of contented
>wage-slaves tap-dancing on the levee, but rather a massive
>concentration of wealth in the hands of an elite.  
> [statistics]

I think you're changing the subject here.  Most of what the capitalists
own (that we're worried about anyway) is pieces of paper giving them
income.  

>  Wealth is much more unevenly distributed than
>income, mainly because income is taxed and wealth mostly is not.

I think you've punctured your own point.  Obviously someone who
holds property to derive income (the capitalist)will own more property 
than someone who owns it merely to enjoy it directly (the worker).
Its value to him, however, must be measured by its use, namely,
the income it produces.

>Richard Carnes

--JoSH