Comments on: Short Marx Notes https://ma.tt/2002/08/short-marx-notes/ Unlucky in Cards Thu, 05 Jan 2006 01:46:11 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=7.0-alpha-61516 By: Amol Shelat https://ma.tt/2002/08/short-marx-notes/#comment-40342 Thu, 05 Jan 2006 01:46:11 +0000 http://photomatt.net/2002/08/02/short-marx-notes/#comment-40342 Are the poor getting richer or poorer, and where is this geographically located? Let’s take a look at the United States. Since the 1970s, the low skilled population (w/out college education) has actually witnessed a decrease in wages as measured against inflation. This has largely to due with the increasing role of international trade and the changing role of technology with respect to comparative advantage. Having a lower relative opportunity cost of producing high-skill-intensive products as compared to low-skill-intensive products, the US has been a the fore-runner in industries such as IT, pharmaceuticals, finance, etc. On the other hand, countries such as China have a lower relative opportunity cost of producing low-skill-specific products such as textiles, mining, etc. as compared to high-skill-specific products. The keywork in these last two sentences is ‘relative’. The US produces textiles more efficiently and at a lower cost than China, but it is more expensive to produce textiles in the US compared to other products. Therefore, while you see low-skilled wages dramatically rising in China, low-skilled wages in the US are, in fact, falling. Michael Moore does a good job in displaying the effects of outsourcing on the US in ‘Roger & Me’, but fails to analyze this properly. Therefore, we can see that poverty must be measured geographically as well.

Let’s attempt to do this. Inequality within countries has been rising. Moreover, inequality among nations has been rising. Therefore, must we not conclude that inequality has been rising on a population basis? NO! If we take a look at population weighted statistics on poverty and wages, inequality has in fact been decreasing on an individual basis. Because countries such as India and China have witnessed such immense amounts of growth in the last several years, and moreover, since they contain almost 1/3 of the world population, wages have in fact been rising. Inequality on a population basis increased dramatically from the early 19th century into the mid 20th century. However, since about 1950/1960 (can’t remember the exact date), inequality has been decreasing in the world.

Thus, what may we conclude from this? 1. Low-skilled workers in highly developed nations are becoming poorer, and 2. Inequality in the world is decreasing on an individual basis. We should not keep stating that it is these 3rd world nations that are aren’t able to lift themselves up from the yoke of Western imperialism. No doubt, these countries have a far way to go before we may even consider them developed nations, but it is manifestly wrong to conclude that Marx’s teleological economic schema can apply to the poor today.

For sources, look to the following:
1. “How did the world’s poorest fare in the 1990s?” by Shaohua Chen and Martin Ravallion
2. Sala-i-Martin (2004)
3. “U.S. Trade with Developing Countries and Wage Inequality” in American Economic Review

]]>
By: D. Lee Alpaugh https://ma.tt/2002/08/short-marx-notes/#comment-1880 Sun, 18 Jan 2004 07:56:55 +0000 http://photomatt.net/2002/08/02/short-marx-notes/#comment-1880 I hope that few people new to Marxism/socialism take your conclusion seriously. Your analysis is overall fairly correct, but to say that Marx “ignores” land, entrepreneurship and “capitol” (Did you mean “capital”, the title of his main work) is totally false. Also, where is your evidence of the poor getting richer? It’s a blanket statement that I doubt you could back up. It’s true that the “standard of living” in the Western countries has raised, there are still throngs of reserve proletariats in the 3rd world who are certainly nowhere better off thanks to capitalism. In other words, don’t let the comfort of the people in the “developed” world fool you into thinking the dynamics Marx talked about aren’t still at work. Not only do the things he wrote about continue to occur, Lenin also talked about them in his “Imperalism”, arguing that capitalism had no choice but to expand both its markets and its reserve pool of laborers globally. It continues to this day and will continue until capitalism’s inevitable self-destruction. (Ask yourself, can a system based on limitless growth go on forever in a finite world?)

]]>
By: Beaver https://ma.tt/2002/08/short-marx-notes/#comment-597 Thu, 06 Mar 2003 22:05:38 +0000 http://photomatt.net/2002/08/02/short-marx-notes/#comment-597 thanks for this

]]>
By: rachel https://ma.tt/2002/08/short-marx-notes/#comment-45 Mon, 05 Aug 2002 02:45:17 +0000 http://photomatt.net/2002/08/02/short-marx-notes/#comment-45 interesting. ayn rand ignores land, labor, and capital

]]>
By: name Beck https://ma.tt/2002/08/short-marx-notes/#comment-40 Fri, 02 Aug 2002 19:59:19 +0000 http://photomatt.net/2002/08/02/short-marx-notes/#comment-40 comment
Good analysis. I wish I were being as productive as you this summer!

]]>
By: Matt https://ma.tt/2002/08/short-marx-notes/#comment-39 Fri, 02 Aug 2002 19:51:00 +0000 http://photomatt.net/2002/08/02/short-marx-notes/#comment-39 I’ve had trouble sleeping lately.

]]>
By: Sarah https://ma.tt/2002/08/short-marx-notes/#comment-38 Fri, 02 Aug 2002 16:49:54 +0000 http://photomatt.net/2002/08/02/short-marx-notes/#comment-38 PS. HOW did you write that at 4:30 am? I can’t even construct simple sentences that late… ummm .. early…..What’s your secret… I think that it will come in handy at school next year 🙂

]]>
By: Sarah https://ma.tt/2002/08/short-marx-notes/#comment-37 Fri, 02 Aug 2002 14:45:43 +0000 http://photomatt.net/2002/08/02/short-marx-notes/#comment-37 You should teach economics! I think that I actually understood that 🙂

]]>