thank you very much! On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 3:52 AM, E. Ahmet Tonak<[email protected]> wrote: > Though the folowing two articles by Mohun only cover the situation up to > 2001, but relevant to the question, I think. > > eat > > > "Distributive Shares in the U.S. Economy, 1964-2001", Cambridge Journal of > Economics 30.3: 347-70, 2006. > > > Specifying the labour theory of value in a way that distinguishes both > productive from unproductive labour, and production workers from supervisory > workers, this paper considers distributive shares in the U.S. economy > between 1964 and 2001. Trends in productive and unproductive labour are > explored in full-time equivalents, hours and money. After 1979, there was a > large shift of money value (not matched by a shift in either hours or > employment) from the wages paid to productive labour to those paid to > supervisory labour. Since the wage share in money value added of > nonsupervisory labour in unproductive sectors was approximately constant, > the 1980s and 1990s also saw the profits share squeezed by the rising wage > share of supervisory workers. Some implications of this are explored in the > construction of a class rather than a factor approach to distributive > shares. > > JEL Classification: C82, E24, O51 > Keywords: productive labour, unproductive labour, profit share, US economy > > "On Measuring the Wealth of Nations: the US Economy, 1964-2001", Cambridge > Journal of Economics 29.5: 799-815, 2005. > > > This paper examines the methodology of Shaikh and Tonak (Measuring the > Wealth of Nations, 1994) underlying their calculation of estimates of > productive labour in the U.S. economy from 1964 to 2001. The focus is not on > the results but on the methods that generate them. The paper finds that the > compromises made by Shaikh and Tonak because of data unavailability are > unreliable, and that better approximations are possible. On this latter > basis the Shaikh and Tonak methodology can be used to provide the labour and > wage estimates needed for empirical investigations in the surplus-based > tradition. > > JEL classification: B5, O51 > Keywords: productive labour, unproductive labour, US economy. > > > > > On 6/4/09 8:37 PM, "Jim Devine" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> does anyone know of recent economic research on the relationship >> between real wages and labor productivity in the United States done >> during the last 15 years or so? (or about the "rate of surplus >> value"?) References would be appreciated. >> >> thanks ahead of time, > > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l >
-- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
