>Well, again, this is semantics. If immiseration means a fall in the
>standard of living then clearly a rise in the standard of living
>precludes a fall in the standard of living.
No immiseration means a fall in the wage below the value of labor power--I think Grossmann and Roger agree on this. To test a Marxist theory, you have to use Marxist concepts, not bourgeois ones like the standard of living. Of course Marx's theory collapses if the concept of an objective value of labor power (which includes paradoxially the apparently subjective historico-moral element) proves to be no more logical than the idea of a yellow logarithm. And Marxist theory may indeed not be able to withstand the neo Ricardian critique, as summarized by David Gordon, on this issue--though a few here have already begun an reply.
At any rate, the real wage did not increase for 25 years in the US; even today real earnings gains in the US are not broad based, concentrated instead among financial wizards. This is an unexpected result based on your understanding of the law of relative surplus value. How do you explain it--to ask you one more time. Yes, I know, it has something to do with the destructive side of capitalism. Care to be any more specific?
Jim also wrote
"And as edifying as my words are, I would not expect them on their own to constitute a clear example of things getting better. They referred, however, in a passage you did not reproduce, to a rising life expectancy."
Rising life expectancy even for the poor is perfectly consistent with stable child and adult mortality rates, esp for the poor, if it is through reductions in infant mortality due to urban-induced fertility decline that the mean life span has been extended (thanks to Carrol for raising the possibility). Basically, Jim, you are lying with statistics; the reductions in child and adult mortality may not have been as substantial as you suggest, especially when we consider the poor, the unemployed, the most poorly paid workers generally, casual rural and urban workers, proletarians in the informal sector and the working class generally--all in the context of the devastation of public health systems due to structural adjustment.
Another point: we should not imagine that the whole world is going through exactly the same kind of demographic changes that the US did. Even if life expectancy is improving, the balance of reasons could be quite different, and the gains distributed more unequally. E.g. fertility decline could be playing a larger causal role in life expectancy improvement, esp for the poor, now in much of the third world than it did in the US which also may have enjoyed more substantial broad-based adult and child mortality rate reductions. Carrol raises this plausible hypothesis.
At any rate, you simply cite a mean improvement which gives the impression that we are all enjoying the gain, more or less. This is not necessarily true. None of my cavils serve as disproof of progress; it only suggests that you have neither proven rising living standards nor disproven immiseration (esp in Grossmann's specific sense). We need better data to prove or disprove your general assessment of things.
Yours, Rakesh