"We do not really know if a US bus driver's wages are higher, in real terms ,i.e., in terms of purchasing power (which is what is socially relevant) than the wages of an Indian bus driver."
Yes we do; it's much higher in $PPP. Tens of times higher. Econ I students still learn that it's basically true that all factors earn an amount equal to the value of what they contribute to output." And the wage is supposed to equal the marginal revenue product of labor, no? Ever since Clark this theory has supposed to make market-determined distribution seem fair. There are a lot of problems with this theory in terms of whether it adds up with non-constant returns to scale and whether it has empirical support and whether it can be formulated in an empirically testable manner. Leave that all aside. My point is that what gives the theory some practical resonance among the American working class are not the illusions of competition as Marx theorized but the protection afforded workers via restrictive immigration law. If wages were set in the absence of immigration control, workers would have no illusion that their earning reflects the value of what they contribute to output. I am not saying that in the absence of open borders the American working class is not exploited.
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
