[WS:] This is no different from what I was arguing - that part of the capitalist income is salary on his/her productive input and part of it is rent on his/her position in the system of production. Salary is productive, rent is parasitic so the ratio of rent to salary in capitalist income is a measure of parasitism. I tend to refrain from the term profit because its lack of analytic clarity (per above) and emotive connotation.
I'd rather use "operating surplus" (which I believe is the technical term used in national accounts) or "income" with the understanding that it has the element of compensation for services and the element of rent.
I have another question for you - a big chunk of investment capital today comes from institutional investors which include for a large part savings and retirement funds of millions of grunts who saved their meager earnings for the old age. Does the interest earned on these investments constitute a parasitic capitalistic profit?
******************************************** It's completely different from what you're arguing. I'm pointing out that no part of capitalist profit (I like the word) represents a salary. It accrues to the capitalist regardless of whether s/he participates in the production process. It belongs to him/her because and only because s/he is an owner of capital. As to your question, yes, the profits of investment funds represent returns to capital, ultimately derived from the exploitation of labor, although workers may partly own them. Most of the returns to these funds, however, go to upper income categories.
Jim