Eva Durant:
>I thought technology is the most
costly for the capitalists, more so than labour,
this is the reason for the tendecy of the rate of profit
to fall, exploiting labour is more and more expensive.
Last time I looked, labour costs were more significant that other costs.
Traditionally, labour costs have run to some 60% of GDP. The only data I
have at hand is from Canada's Provincial Economic Accounts for 1991. In
these, "Wages, salaries and supplementary labour income" accounts for 57.2%
of the combined GDP of Canada's provinces. All of the items which might be
interpreted as suggesting returns to capital total less than 13%. However,
much would depend on the firm. Some firms rely much more heavily on capital
than others, and replacing old capital with newer and more efficient capital
could be the major cost.
>Women worked in hell-factories and even mines
without any technological link... Women work now,
because to keep the standard of living required
by the social/cultural environment, and due to the
stagnation of wages, now two income is necessary for
most families. I cannot think of a new housework
easing device besides the microvawe in the last 3,4,5?
decades.
I don't think too many people had dishwashers four or five decades ago. And
all of the other appliances have improved. We just recently bought a
washing machine to replace an old one that leaked all over the floor. It
does things the old one certainly couldn't do (besides not leak greasy
water).
>Due to some improvement in making education more
gender-equal and more economic independence,
it will be difficult to push women back to the
kitchen again, though the present yet halfhidden
recession is already trying to do that, with the
idea, that only lone mothers have the moral duty to work,
middle class married women should be home-makers,
if they work, they are to be blamed for all ills of
society...
I would predict that any attempt to push women back into the kitchen would
meet with extreme resistance.
Best regards,
Ed Weick
