>That "necessary cost" is rather plastic. In the U.S. and Australia,
>it includes pretty good food and housing, not bugs and mud huts.
By "necessary", I mean necessary in the context of the required standard of living, education, etc, for the maintenance of the standard of labour force. That is to say, socially necessary.
People who live in mud huts and eat bugs aren't in very high demand in the Australian labour market. So you would be utterly mistaken to assume that the "necessary cost" is a subjective thing. A higher standard of living is absolutely *required* to maintain the more productive labour force.
Or perhaps you imagine you can pluck people at random out of mud huts, people with no education whatever, with no literacy, and set them to operate your desktop publishing equipment while you have a holiday?
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas