Jim heartfield sez:
> Roger's point 1. (that living standards are rising) simply contradicts
> his point 6. and 7. (that workers living standards are below their
> living standards).
And, in his specific response to my points 6 and 7, that increases in labor's income can lag, and have lagged, cost increases the consumption basket of social necessities, resulting in immiseration of labor, Jim sez:
>I'm sorry , I don't think this makes sense. Labour's income is its
>social subsistence consumption basket.
This is the heart of the matter. The social subsistence consumption basket is an estimate of what it costs to reproduce labor in a particular social setting. It's a number created by analysts. It includes, for example, besides food, shelter, etc., the cost of education and the development of the individual.
Jim, you think this is "labor's income" as if these estimates were factor payments (where do workers go to collect this "income"?). And therefore the whole discussion of the possibility of immiseration makes no sense? So this is why you have been saying over and over (you characterize it again as the only point you were making) that rising living standards mean there has been no immiseration. And why you claim I have been saying income is going up and down at the same time!
Amazing. Thanks for clearing this up.
Wages are labor's income, Jim, and their deviation from estimates of consumption needs is what creates the possibility of immiseration, among other things.
Roger