• bleepbloopbop [they/them]
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    I'm saying the definition you gave refers to "per capita value produced by the working class as a whole" but then you cite median household income (I'm guessing, since the source I found says ~2920/yr for that) as the cutoff value for labor aristocracy vs not. Those aren't the same thing.

    • Muad'Dibber@lemmygrad.ml
      ·
      2 months ago

      I didn't cite median household income. That number is the average wage rate for male workers (in PPP 2007 USD dollars) according to the ILO.

      • bleepbloopbop [they/them]
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Okay, I guessed since you didn't say, but still, wages don't include the entire "value produced by the working class" so I don't understand how it applies; like how is "adjusted average wage rate for male workers" a better way to measure said value, than say, ppp adjusted GDP per capita (or other measures that incorporate more than just wages)?

          • bleepbloopbop [they/them]
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            okay, GDP is a shitty measure, but the core point is that the measure you cite doesn't line up with the supposedly very basic straightforward definition you offered. That's what I don't get.

            Edit: and also, I'm talking about global gdp per capita, not gdp per capita in each country, so unequal distribution wouldn't even matter, as long as the total amount figure is still meaningful.