One idea is that of "unequal exchange." One version of this is as follows: in an
imaginary world, labor-power would be totally mobile, as would capital. Thus, wages
would be equalized around the world (for workers with similar skills, etc.) But
compared to this counterfactual (hypothetical) world, labor-power isn't totally
mobile, nor is capital, so that workers in high-productivity areas (the core) can
claim higher wages without being undercut by the low wages in the
periphery.(Productivity differences arise because capital isn't totally mobile.)
Eventually, however, capital will move to the low-wage areas, so this situation is
undermined (and to a lesser extent, cheap labor moves north). One might think of the
high wage period as being from 1945 to (say) 1975 in the US, while the undermining is
since then.
In this view, the unequal exchange benefits the "core" workers at the expense of the
"periphery" workers as a whole. However, both groups of workers are exploited by the
capitalists (or, in the periphery, non-capitalist ruling classes).
Jim Devine
-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Henwood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tue 5/4/2004 7:20 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] The new Iraqi Flag
Charles Brown wrote:
>I know Doug has presented strong arguments against superprofits being used
>to buy off some of the U.S. working class, but is there none of that at all
>? Why is the mass standard of living in the U.S. higher than most other
>places ? Is it just higher U.S. productivity ?
Yeah. Why not? Where do these superprofits from abroad come from,
anyway? Which sector, what part of the world?
Doug
