This is true, if you think in terms, as Pareti apparently does, of the economy of the product by way of the labor investment, sans the accounting processes. That is, sans the cost of materials purchased to be labored upon; the cost of the performance of the labor by way of tools, electricity, and, of course, water cooler time, lunch and beaks; and the other costs that the manufacturer must invest in and pay inn order for the working class to be employed in his craft or skill. Workers employed by Intel and Exxon," Parenti informs us, "received only about one ninth of the value they created." This is probably true, and although Parenti does not offer or present the formula by which he made this astounding calculation, it sounds, off the top of one's head, that he is close if you consider the profit value of the product vs. The pay incentive made to the employee who created the product. Parenti does not even mention expensing, accrual, or penalties and offsets. He does go on to clarify this as the "value going to the owner," whatever that means.

It was the simplicity of this kind of economics - bad economics - that gave rise to the socialist revolution in Russia. Take a people during an economic hardship, when their "value" fails to keep pace with inflation and the other free enterprise that lives off their value; and you have the socialism that Parenti is no doubt heading for in his discussion in this article.

Before he get there, suffice to say that he is not altogether wrong; but he is very wrong nonetheless, and if any part of statement is false, logic dictates, then the entire statement is false.

He goes on to discuss the exploitation of workers - but fails to mention, too, health care benefits - and the cost of drug and alcohol in the benefit is an enormous cost to the employer, and often a carve-out these days that is nearly 100% employer contribution; vacations,...

He fails to realize, too that opportunity is what America is about. Each of these workers he complains of being exploited, have the opportunity, the right, to rise above their level of class, their level of exploitedness, and to pursue the requirements, socially, academically or otherwise, that would provide them the knowledge, credibility, and skills to either perform work where they can be the level of class that allows them to exploit those who do not rise above that circumstance; or they can choose to remain in that level of exploitation.
The other thing that Parenti fails to note is that everybody is needed; the man at the top, the owning class, and the man who changes tires. He fails to mention, too, that often times, the man who changes tires, who has not pursued the education and social skills is often as content with his life and "things" as is the man at the top.

The remainder of Parenti's article is really a regurgitation of disgruntled socialism. "In capitalist societies," he says, "if people cannot find work, that is their misfortune." Parenti disregards the most important factor about American enterprise; that is, that for the most part, most Americans are happy with it. They are more sophisticated in their happiness than Parenti credits them with having the sense to be; they are sophisticated enough to reject socialism.

Parenti sums up his essay under the subtitle of the Human Cost of Economic Injustice, and leaves us with this very memorable socialistic appeal: If we love our country, then we should also care for the people who inhabit it and not want to see them victimized. The data presented (he's referring to the many unemployment statistics and inflation statistics cited) are an attack not on the United States but on the untrammeled market system that victimizes our nation's people.