Click amount to donate direct to CounterPunch
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $500
  • $other
  • use PayPal
DOUBLE YOUR DONATION!
We don’t run corporate ads. We don’t shake our readers down for money every month or every quarter like some other sites out there. We provide our site for free to all, but the bandwidth we pay to do so doesn’t come cheap. A generous donor is matching all donations of $100 or more! So please donate now to double your punch!
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Is Cuba Done With Equality?

The Communist Party of Cuba has seen the lightit has just announced that from now on wages in Cuba will not be determined by the government, which kept them nearly equal, but by workers’ productivity. Of course, since it was the Party itself that made this change, ideologically this is as momentous as the fall of the Berlin Wall.

That this is an ideological defeat for equality and for communism there can be no doubt.  As economist David Ricardo explained some two hundred years ago, the very idea of “worker productivity” is a hollow concept. Not only can a worker’s productivity not be measured, it cannot even be defined.

Ricardo pointed out that production is normally performed by workers who work not with their bare hands but with machines, producing not a whole product but instead performing only one step in a production process that has many. Therefore, Ricardo explained, a worker’s productivity cannot be separated either from the productivity of the machine that she works with, or from the productivity of the rest of the workers in the production process. When a skyscraper goes up, how much of a building would there be with only a crane operator but no crane, or with only a crane and operator but no workers to pour the concrete? The workers and machines together form a team, and measuring the productivity of the team is easy: In the case of construction it may be one or two buildings a year, for instance. But measuring the productivity of an individual worker or a particular piece of machinery is impossible, because a worker by herself or a machine by itself would not be able to produce anything at all.

What determines wages, then? According to Ricardo the team gets paid the value of the product that it has produced, but the division of this pay among the different members of the team is determined not by each member’s productivity, but by each member’s bargaining power. Workers’ bargaining power is determined by the strength of unions, the minimum wage law and unemployment insurance. Shareholders’ bargaining power is determined by the strength of the laws that permit them to control executive compensation. Pay is determined not by objective measures of productivity but by power.

Since Ricardo’s explanation is so obvious, where does the notion that in a market system wages are determined by workers’ productivity come from? It was invented by a Columbia University professor of economics, John Bates Clark, in a book published in 1899 called “The Distribution of Wealth: A Theory of Wages, Interest and Profits.” Clark of course knew Ricardo’s theory of wages, but he was more of a man with a social mission than a scientist. His mission? To end the class war between employers and workers that raged at the time. Events such as the Haymarket Massacre of 1886 and the hanging of eight labor leaders that followed led Clark to believe that the spectre of socialism was haunting the US. In the introduction to his book he explained:

“The indictment that hangs over society is that of “exploiting labor.” “Workmen” it is said, “are regularly robbed of what they produce. This is done within the forms of law, and by the natural working of competition.” If this charge were proved, every right-minded man should become a socialist.”

Clark took it upon himself to prove that the charge of exploitation was wrong and his “proof” could not have been simpler. He simply stated that in spite of the fact that workers use machines and in spite of the fact that production involves many steps, the productivity of the individual worker is measurable, and it is this productivity that determines the worker’s wage. Not only do workers get all they deserve, but if the wage were to be raised employers would have no choice but to fire them. No employer can pay out more than the worker puts in.

The evidence that Clark’s theory is wrong is all around us. A taxi requires a driver and a taxi driver requires a taxi. What is the productivity of the taxi without the driver or of the driver without the taxi? The pay of the two together is determined by their productivity, but what the share of the taxi-owner or of the taxi driver is, is determined by their bargaining power.

In 1941, Wassily Leontief, a Nobel Prize winning economist, tried to alert economists to the fallacy of Clark’s theory. He pointed out that team production is “no less than a formal rejection of the marginal productivity theory. The marginal productivity of any [factor of production] … is zero.” Like Ricardo before him, Leontief was never challenged. Instead he was simply ignored. And Clark’s soothing tale that wages are determined by workers’ productivity is still being taught as a rock-solid scientific theory by economists all over the globe.

Since productivity is not measurable, how is the Communist Party of Cuba likely to implement its plan to pay workers according to their productivity? Having fallen for the fallacy that the wages in market economies are determined by productivity, the Party will probably observe the pay differentials that exist in the West and implement them at home. What’s in store for Cuba is the standard menu that comes with wage inequality, including poor public education but first-rate private schools, insufficient or no health care for the majority but excellent medical care for CEOs and government officials, a substantial increase in the length of the working day, with fewer vacations and job insecurity to boot.

MOSHE ADLER is the Director of Public Interest Economics.  He can be reached at ma82092@gmail.com.

 

Your Ad Here
 

 

 

 

 

More articles by:

Moshe Adler teaches economics at Columbia University and at the Harry Van Arsdale Center for Labor Studies at Empire State College. He is the author of Economics for the Rest of Us: Debunking the Science That Makes Life Dismal (The New Press, 2010),  which is available in paperback and as an e-book and in Chinese (2013) and Korean (2015) editions.

October 23, 2018
Patrick Cockburn
The Middle East, Not Russia, Will Prove Trump’s Downfall
Ipek S. Burnett
The Assault on The New Colossus: Trump’s Threat to Close the U.S.-Mexican Border
Mary Troy Johnston
The War on Terror is the Reign of Terror
Maximilian Werner
The Rhetoric and Reality of Death by Grizzly
David Macaray
Teamsters, Hells Angels, and Self-Determination
Jeffrey Sommers
“No People, Big Problem”: Democracy and Its Discontents In Latvia
Dean Baker
Looking for the Next Crisis: the Not Very Scary World of CLOs
Binoy Kampmark
Leaking for Change: ASIO, Jakarta, and Australia’s Jerusalem Problem
Chris Wright
The Necessity of “Lesser-Evil” Voting
Muhammad Othman
Daunting Challenge for Activists: The Cook Customer “Connection”
Don Fitz
A Debate for Auditor: What the Papers Wouldn’t Say
October 22, 2018
Henry Giroux
Neoliberalism in the Age of Pedagogical Terrorism
Melvin Goodman
Washington’s Latest Cold War Maneuver: Pulling Out of the INF
David Mattson
Basket of Deplorables Revisited: Grizzly Bears at the Mercy of Wyoming
Michelle Renee Matisons
Hurricane War Zone Further Immiserates Florida Panhandle, Panama City
Tom Gill
A Storm is Brewing in Europe: Italy and Its Public Finances Are at the Center of It
Suyapa Portillo Villeda
An Illegitimate, US-Backed Regime is Fueling the Honduran Refugee Crisis
Christopher Brauchli
The Liars’ Bench
Gary Leupp
Will Trump Split the World by Endorsing a Bold-Faced Lie?
Michael Howard
The New York Times’ Animal Cruelty Fetish
Alice Slater
Time Out for Nukes!
Geoff Dutton
Yes, Virginia, There are Conspiracies—I Think
Daniel Warner
Davos in the Desert: To Attend or Not, That is Not the Question
Priti Gulati Cox – Stan Cox
Mothers of Exiles: For Many, the Child-Separation Ordeal May Never End
Manuel E. Yepe
Pence v. China: Cold War 2.0 May Have Just Begun
Raouf Halaby
Of Pith Helmets and Sartorial Colonialism
Dan Carey
Aspirational Goals  
Wim Laven
Intentional or Incompetence—Voter Suppression Where We Live
Weekend Edition
October 19, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Jason Hirthler
The Pieties of the Liberal Class
Jeffrey St. Clair
A Day in My Life at CounterPunch
Paul Street
“Male Energy,” Authoritarian Whiteness and Creeping Fascism in the Age of Trump
Nick Pemberton
Reflections on Chomsky’s Voting Strategy: Why The Democratic Party Can’t Be Saved
John Davis
The Last History of the United States
Yigal Bronner
The Road to Khan al-Akhmar
Robert Hunziker
The Negan Syndrome
Andrew Levine
Democrats Ahead: Progressives Beware
Rannie Amiri
There is No “Proxy War” in Yemen
David Rosen
America’s Lost Souls: the 21st Century Lumpen-Proletariat?
Joseph Natoli
The Age of Misrepresentations
Ron Jacobs
History Is Not Kind
John Laforge
White House Radiation: Weakened Regulations Would Save Industry Billions
Ramzy Baroud
The UN ‘Sheriff’: Nikki Haley Elevated Israel, Damaged US Standing
Robert Fantina
Trump, Human Rights and the Middle East
Anthony Pahnke – Jim Goodman
NAFTA 2.0 Will Help Corporations More Than Farmers
Jill Richardson
Identity Crisis: Elizabeth Warren’s Claims Cherokee Heritage
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail