No Doug, I said the specific 'manufacturing workforce' to which I should have obviously said 'formal sector'. Go back and check if you like. And if you want to take up data integrity with Marty or Paul, let me know and I'll try to reach them.
> Then
> you selectively quoted them saying that only irregular employment
> increased, which is also not true.
Actually comrade Doug, *you're* the one who rejected the posting of the
full article about 43 hours ago, a posting which contains these
sentences by Marty and Paul: "Despite the country’s rapid growth and the
government’s support for new, non-state forms of enterprise, the new
emerging formal enterprises (cooperative enterprises, joint ownership
enterprises, limited liability corporations, shareholding corporations
and foreign-funded enterprises) generated only 24.1 million jobs. The
result was an overall decline in formal sector employment of 34.1
million. Even with the employment contribution of the informal urban
sector (registered small privately owned enterprises and individually
owned enterprises), the Chinese economy managed an overall increase in
regular employment of only 1.7 million workers over the thirteen year
period. This was far from sufficient to match the growth in labor supply."
> You're maddening to argue with. You say growth has declined
> successively, without specifying any time or region.
Doug, have I ever said 'growth declined'? No, not if GDP; I have always
pointed out - including in a paper we were supposedly going to coauthor
last year - that the *rate* of growth had declined, decade by decade
(over full business cycles), from the 1960s through 1990s, with the
2000s ambigious.
> But that's
> really true in no time or region in the last 25 years. When that's
> shown to you, you criticize the technique, and say we should really
> be talking about depreciation of the natural world.
Yes, that's true, and we should also talk about unpaid women's labour. Why don't we/you on a regular basis, Doug? So yes, I allege - but don't have lots of data sets to prove it (though see www.redefiningprogress.org for one cut at it from 1950s-early 2000s) - that genuine wealth creation has declined in rate and in absolute terms in many regions, once we factor in many things GDP leaves out. And if you haven't seen Where is the Wealth of Nations (or my Capitalism Nature Socialism reinterpretation of the stats for African in 2006), let me know and I'll send it.
> When you're
> proven wrong on China,
Hmmm, was I? (I know I made one error in this discussion, relating to James' statement about Marx on crisis.)
> you start talking about South Africa.
Yes, because I'm most familiar with the formal/informal labour debate here. And there is a clear comparison to China, as Whitehouse points out.
> SA isn't
> experiencing a boom and no one ever claimed it is.
Oh, you're not reading The Economist or FT too closely, comrade! (Or debate list!)
> China is
> experiencing a boom, one of the most remarkable in history, despite
> the best efforts of some Marxists to deny it (because it violates
> theory?).
>
No, because it leads otherwise sharp minded comrades like yourself astray. Marty and Paul do a *great* job at debunking of Asian Miracle myths, give them credit.
>> And the basic problem, as M&P argue, is as Marx put it: the
>> "industrial
>> war of capitalists among themselves . . . has the peculiarity that the
>> battles in it are won less by recruiting than by discharging the
>> army of
>> workers. The generals (the capitalists) vie with one another as to who
>> can discharge the greatest number of industrial workers."
>>
>
> A statement that is not visible in any actual employment statistics
> for much of the world.
>
>
Sure, capital intensity is the quickest way to nominal productivity growth and comparative advantage, and rising K/L ratios are observed all over the world, and accompany shrinking manufacturing, mining, and agricultural workforces. Do I need stats to introduce you to this phenomenon?
>> So just to keep under 25 kb, I'll append the section of M&P's MR piece
>> on the Chinese labour situation, plus the conclusion, so your readers
>> can empathise with the creators of durable consumer goods they utilize
>> today.
>>
>
> And then you change the subject yet again, to imply that I don't give
> a shit about the nature of life for Chinese workers. They're often
> ruthlessly exploited. Paid a pittance, exposed to toxic chemicals of
> all kinds, leading profoundly insecure lives. No one denied this,
> certainly not me.
>
>
Ok, sorry, it was just a little tweak at those admirers of China like...
I better not say his name, it'll come up on his google and I'll never
hear the end of it!
> You seem to think that unless you argue that capitalism is
> collapsing, or on the verge of collapse, then you approve of it.
>
>
No, but researching volatility instead of being so damn sanguine would give you an extra bow in the quiver, comrade.