Shane wrote: > Did you really mean to say *gross*, rather than *net* profits?
Yes, thank you: Gross of taxes. Not gross of costs. Surplus is approximately what the BEA nicely calls "property income" to distinguish it from "labor income" (wages, salaries, benefits). Yes, you're right -- certain salaries and benefits (what you call "executive compensation") should be regarded as "property income," i.e. forms of surplus value, and be subtracted from the BEA's "labor income." (But there are also certain forms of income, of freelancers and small business owners, that may seem like "property income" to the BEA, but that under a microscope is sheer "labor income." No idea how these adjustments would correct the BEA's figures.) This is by the way the rational kernel in the notion of "human capital": Income flows that result from skills, experience, etc., several standard deviations to the right of the BEA's mean "labor income," allowing people to retire early and live off rents and interests during a significant portion of their lives, etc. has to be viewed as a form of surplus value, unpaid labor. And this is, IMO, whether the labor performed is productive (e.g. that of a scientist, a physician, a highly paid engineer, a sport person, a salaried performer) or just socially necessary (under capitalism, that is, e.g. executive compensation). Why, if that labor is productive? Why, if that worker is a (privileged) member of the collective worker? It's not only due to sociological and political inclinations among these people. It's mainly because it is obvious that the highly educated, skilled, experienced labor force is appropriating gratis the fruits of social production. To this extent, they are exploiters. Or as the economists say, their rents result from positive externalities that regular workers are not able to collect. As is, no time to edit. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
