As I expected Dr. Flynn did not respond to my critique of his refutation of Marx. I was quite thorough and proved what he said in that section to be completely untrue. I emailed him a copy of the post, but it went unanswered. However an individual on YouTube (who I won’t be naming due to the blatantly ignorant racist name) has attempted to refute it. His attempt was weak and completely baseless. He statement boils down to this:
“I read the blog. The biggest mistake he made (among many) was the typical showing of Real Wages Vs. Productivity rather than Total Compensation Vs. Productivity.”
These “many” mistakes are not listed anywhere. I don’t believe they exist which is why he didn’t list them, I was pretty thorough. His real complaint is that I didn’t take into account total compensation against productivity. This isn’t actually relevant because it was not what Dr. Flynn was talking about, nor was it what Marx was talking about. He’s making an new argument that was not in the “Economics For Dummies” book. This does not refute my showing Dr. Flynn lied about what Marx said, nor does it refute what Marx himself said. Regardless I will deal with his separate argument.
His claim is that total compensation will rise correspondingly to an increase in productivity (which wages didn’t do), I feel this is implied by his comment. Presumably this would prove that what we receive from employers rose equal to that of an increase in production. From this I assume he is trying to say that Marx is wrong and that supposedly an increase in exploitation didn’t happen, so therefore the Marxist economic theory is wrong. There is one huge problem with this, he is completely wrong. This is the only source I could find for this, the Heritage Foundation.
Notice the wording on the chart, “Source: Heritage Foundation Calculations on data from the Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics/Haver Analytics; compensation per hour adjusted using the Implicit Price Deflator.” Their calculations are the important part to notice here. The data from many other sources completely contradict what they claim is true. In addition to that, the Heritage Foundation is a notoriously dishonest organization that is dedicated to right wing bourgeois propaganda. It’s not reliable at all, independent analysis from several sources show it to be completely fraudulent.
As we can see several more reputable sources completely disagree with what the notoriously dishonest Heritage Foundation has to say. I’m sure their calculation method is deliberately skewed to make it say what they want it to say. they are after all literally a propaganda outlet serving the interests of the economic elite, particularly the hardcore right wing section of it. Reality does not correspond to their opinion and I don’t believe they are ignorant of it. They have a vested interest in lying about it.
The claim that total compensation rose with productivity is completely false. This argument is not only incorrect, but it also has nothing to do with what I was discussing.