Source does speak about it more. It’s a question of not only how much work is being done, but what’s the difference of wages for the same work:
Despite contributing 90–91% of the total labour that goes into global production and the production of traded goods in 2021, including the majority of high-skilled labour, the global South received less than half (44%) of global income, and Southern workers received only 21% of global income in that year. In other words, while global production is overwhelmingly performed in the global South, the yields are disproportionately captured in the global North, indicating a disproportionate command of the global product.
labour exchange:
In 2021, the global North imported 906 billion hours of embodied labour from the South while exporting only 80 billion hours in return (a ratio of 11:1). On average across the period, the North imported 15x more labour from the South than it exported in return. In other words, the North net-appropriates large quantities of labour from the South.
and labour’s share of GDP:
We find that, globally, labour received, on average, 51.6% of world GDP during the 5-year period 2017–2021. In other words, only half of all value produced in the world economy (that is represented in prices and included in GDP accounts) is captured by workers in the form of wages... Southern workers’ share of Southern GDP is notably lower than the global average, at an average of 47.5% during the 2017–2021 period, while Northern workers’ share of Northern GDP is higher, at an average of 54.7% during the same period.
Yeah, i know, i read it cuz i was curious what their definition of the global north was and what percent of the population it made up. And i would agree that the imperialist dynamics described are super important but in the post the simple fact that the global south does 90% of the labor is presented as significant in its own right which what i dont get. I mean it is significant in a way but its just as significant as pointing out that the vast vast majority of the population is in the global south, idk seems too simple to even point out.
I thought about how to phrase my original comment quite a bit and i was going to include some of the fact u quoted as things which are quite significant compared to what is said in the post but decided against because it because it kinda sounded like i was dismissing imperialism as relevant but maybe i should have just to avoid this exact responses.
Source does speak about it more. It’s a question of not only how much work is being done, but what’s the difference of wages for the same work:
labour exchange:
and labour’s share of GDP:
Yeah, i know, i read it cuz i was curious what their definition of the global north was and what percent of the population it made up. And i would agree that the imperialist dynamics described are super important but in the post the simple fact that the global south does 90% of the labor is presented as significant in its own right which what i dont get. I mean it is significant in a way but its just as significant as pointing out that the vast vast majority of the population is in the global south, idk seems too simple to even point out.
I thought about how to phrase my original comment quite a bit and i was going to include some of the fact u quoted as things which are quite significant compared to what is said in the post but decided against because it because it kinda sounded like i was dismissing imperialism as relevant but maybe i should have just to avoid this exact responses.