The Actuality of Marx’s Immiseration Thesis in the 21st Century

March 15, 2019 by Gabriel Palcic

One of the main defenses of capitalism is the claim that this system has increased living standards to their highest point in human history. The capitalist mode of production, distribution, and exchange under a globalized world order has created a superabundance of material wealth. But the distribution of that wealth in a fair, even equitable manner is another matter entirely. Social movements intended to address inequality and poverty in the developed and developing worlds have taken our planet by storm, and global conversations are underway about the massive and growing disparities between rich and poor, across class and country. These issues have compounded with other questions about the economic functionality of capitalism, especially since the Great Recession, and ideology is coming to the fore. One of the powerful ideological currents making a comeback, especially among Western youth, is that of scientific socialism and the world conception of its progenitor, Karl Marx. Among all the tools with which he equipped the working class, the immiseration thesis, is today one of the most relevant and viable, even after the passing of a century and a half.
The Theory

Marx’s theory of immiseration is one sewn together posthumously by his disciples; Marx never used the phrase, instead preferring the term ‘pauperization’, meaning ‘to reduce to poverty’. Based on multiple references to his writings on economics the theory has come to mean, in a word, that workers would get poorer as capitalists got richer. In Marx’s own words, “in proportion as capital accumulates, the situation of the worker, be his payment high or low, must grow worse.”¹ That is, there is an inverse relation between the two opposing classes regarding the productive development of capitalism. A more nuanced definition states that real wages stagnate in proportion to the overall increase in productivity. The surplus-value wrought by this increase in productivity is not, over time, allocated in the same proportion as it perhaps once was (say, 70% for the capitalist, 30% for the workers), but the net increase in overall productive value goes directly into the pockets of the capitalist class while real wages plateau, despite the increase in productivity, so that the surplus value is distributed even less equitably (say, 90% for the capitalists, 10% for the workers).

Marx argued that capitalism creates unemployed and underemployed labor, or a reserve army of labor which, in its relation to the profitability and mobility of capital, hinders the working class from increasing its real wages faster than productivity. The result of these relations is the reduction of real wages relative to the overall productivity of labor, thus increasing the rate of exploitation. This tendency expands the gulf between the power of the capitalists and the workers, as the former accumulates capital at a rate equal to that of the productive increase of the laboring masses over whom they preside.
The result of this divergence in absolute income is increased inequality, a stagnation of living standards, more acute class distinctions, slower economic growth, social instability, and greater alienation of the working class in all its forms. Thus, the deleterious impact of immiseration, or pauperization, is not only material, but psychological as well.
Marx asserted that eventually, through the consolidation of industrial empires and the resultant sharpening of class contradiction between capitalists and workers through growing inequality, the groundwork is laid for the dialectical summation of these two forces, and revolution ensues. Workers would then see that the absolute impoverishment and the precarity of their existence under the capitalist world order are unacceptable and realize they have nothing to lose but their chains. For Marx, if these conditions are met but revolution does not occur, it could be that the alienation workers experience or indoctrination prevents them from reaching a state of revolutionary class consciousness. Or if class consciousness is reached, the necessary revolutionary organizational structures to direct the energy of the class-aware proletarian masses do not exist; or, the police and intelligence agencies are so ubiquitous and advanced that they ruthlessly curtail this organization from occurring. This summary of the predicted outcome of Marx’s immiseration thesis is oft dismissed as incorrect and economically deterministic. For now it is sufficient to show that, in recent decades, the immiseration thesis itself—not the predicted final outcome—has been proven correct: real wages have decreased in proportion to the overall increase in productivity and enrichment of the capitalist class. Whether this, in turn, moves the wheel of history in a direction of widespread upheaval—a scenario that think tanks are warning of and the intelligence communities are preparing for—will be a matter of time and destiny. 
There is a wealth of recent macroeconomic data that supports the immiseration thesis. The U.S., as the center of global capitalism since World War II and the main originator of its most recent incarnation, neoliberalism, makes a useful case study in the exploration of these developments.
The neoliberal era started in the latter half of the 1970s. It is defined by a reversion of economic policies that follow the 19^th century ideas of unencumbered laissez-faire economic liberalism and is characterized by privatization, deregulation, and austerity, thus unhinging social and legal control mechanisms on wealth consolidation. The war against unions, and worker rights in general, and the unfettering of globalized capitalism through deregulation has created the conditions for an unprecedented consolidation of wealth and power. This landscape of laissez-faire capitalism has upended most of the previous Keynesian restrictions on capital accumulation that existed for almost half a century, when many of Marx’s theories fell out of favor. However, the current economic environment has become extremely conducive for wealth consolidation to the point that oligopoly, monopoly, and cartel characterize the modern capitalist form. It is important to consider this reversion to the implementation of early ideas of political economy because they are creating conditions akin to those that existed during Marx’s time, when he formulated his theoretical framework and methodology based on the material conditions of the advanced capitalist countries. It is sensible, therefore, that his ideas are experiencing resurgence, and that his theories are again becoming accurate and predictive, as the underlying temperament of global capitalism regresses to its earlier, 19^th century form.
Macroeconomic Indicators of Immiseration Globally

The most important indicators of the correctness of the immiseration thesis in the 21^st century are ones that show that the material well-being of the working class has decreased in proportion to that of the ruling class. Proving the correctness of the relative immiseration thesis today can thus be accomplished by simply looking at trends in poverty and wealth inequality and, from this, the pay of the average worker in relation to increased production.

Before we get to the United States, it will help to bolster our argument if we take a look at the developed world to show that the immiseration of the working class relative to the ruling class is, in fact, global.
Global Inequality

Bill Gates is one of the richest people in world history. His net worth, at $100 billion, is greater than that of the annual GDP of the 138 poorest countries when considered individually.^7,8 In early April 2017, he and his wife Melinda issued their annual public letter, which told of great news: the fight against global poverty is being won, as those living on less than $1.25 a day (the UN’s definition of extreme poverty) have been halved since 1990.⁹ But there is an extensive scholarly consensus that the threshold for poverty should be $5 a day, in fact the US Department of Agriculture concluded a decade ago it is the bare minimum needed for people to simply maintain homeostasis.¹⁰ In adjusted terms that means today the poverty line should be $7.40 a day. Using this well-founded revised number, 4.2 billion people are living in poverty, more than 60% of humanity. But Marx’s immiseration thesis is such that it requires the variable of time in order to be proven correct. Has the number of people living on less than $7.40 a day decreased over time? Unfortunately not. Over 1 billion more people fall below this line than they did 35 years, meaning that global poverty is actually increasing.¹¹ This fact stands in direct contradiction to the self-congratulatory proclamations of the supranational organizations and billionaire “philanthropists” like Bill Gates (who lives in a 125 million dollar mansion).

Oxfam, a coalition of charitable organizations overseen by Oxford, has collected important data on the recent dramatic global wealth divergence. They found in 2010 that the richest 388 individuals owned more wealth than the poorest half of the world. In early 2015 this number was reduced to 80, in late 2015 to 62, in January 2018 to 42 people. In January 2019, it was found that the 26 wealthiest now own more wealth than the poorest 3.8 billion of humanity combined.¹² In another Oxfam report, the crisis of inequality is brought into different relief: “Seven out of 10 people live in a country that has seen a rise in inequality in the last 30 years. Between 1988 and 2011 the incomes of the poorest 10 percent increased by just $65 per person, while the incomes of the richest 1 percent grew by $11,800 per person – 182 times as much.”¹³ Another 2016 study found that the richest 1% now own the same wealth as the bottom 99% of humanity combined, or 50% of global wealth, a sharp increase from 2010.¹⁴ Further, the richest 10% own 87.7% of the world’s wealth; the richest 50% own a staggering 99.3% of the world’s wealth, while the poorest 50% of humanity grovel over the remaining 0.7%. Moreover, the poorest 50% have seen their wealth actually decrease by roughly 1 trillion dollars since 2010, despite this population increasing by 400 million, while the 62 richest people have accumulated a further $1.76 trillion.¹⁵
Comparing a few more statistics will further highlight just how needlessly poverty-stricken the global working class is presently. It was found in 2013 that the annual income of the richest 100 individuals was enough to end poverty that year four times over.¹⁶ Since their wealth continues to increase precipitously, we can surmise that this figure is now even more grotesque. Every year the world wastes enough food to feed 3.48 billion.¹⁷ Every day over 8,000 children die from starvation or under-nutrition, yet it would cost just 30 billion dollars each year to eliminate hunger forever.^{18, 19} In 2016, global wealth was measured at 256 trillion dollars, and global GDP currently stands at $75.28 trillion.^{20, 21} If we wanted to wipe out hunger in 2018 we would have to use 0.000117% of global existing wealth, or roughly 0.0004% of the world’s annual GDP.
We can see that there has been a global, accelerating divergence in wealth since the 21^st century began. Clearly the immiseration of the global working class is occurring in proportion to the enrichment of the global elite. The argument for the correctness of Marx’s immiseration thesis is already coming into view; we simply need to introduce the variable of productivity.
Global Productivity and Growth

It is no secret that global productivity has been stagnating, especially since the 21^st century began. With this consideration in mind the explosive accumulation of capital into the smallest amount of hands highlights all the more the inequities of the modern capitalist world system. It is hypothesized that high levels of inequality are bad for productivity growth.²² If we keep in mind the staggering rise of inequality globally that was briefly explained above, we can predict that global productivity will continue to lag.

The compound annual growth rate of gross world product tells us the rate at which the global economy is expanding. In the 19^th century global growth is estimated to have risen from 0.62% annually in 1800 to 2.69% annually by 1900. During the first half of the 20^th century the compound growth rate wavered at around 2.75% per annum, resulting in a quadrupling of global GDP so that by 1960 gross world product was $1.4 trillion. In the latter half of the 20^th century the compound growth rate was around 4.75% per annum, resulting in gross world product multiplying by a figure of 25 between 1960 and 2000 so that the world economy was annually producing roughly $33.5 trillion at the end of the 20^th century.²³ Since the 21^st century began, the compound growth rate has averaged 2.88% and the gross world product now stands at $74.3 trillion, a doubling of annual world economic output in just 16 years.²⁴ In 2016 the growth rate finally rose above 3% for the first time in 5 years.²⁵ Global output has accelerated in the last 60 years due to the population explosion from 3 billion in 1960 to 7.5 billion as of April 24^th, 2017, and the average increase in productivity per worker.²⁶ Unfortunately we do not have data on the whole world’s labor productivity, average wages, and average hours worked. But with this backdrop in mind let’s explore the OECD countries to find out if Marx’s thesis holds up under greater scrutiny.
But as workers have become more productive, has there been a rise in income and thus living standards? In other words has the surplus value created by their labor increased average real wages over time? Has this mass of wealth accumulated into the pockets of the richest, thus increasing the rate of exploitation? If so, in what proportion have real wages increased, if at all, relative to that of the rich?
OECD Analysis

The data for many developing nations that we need to measure income, productivity, and other macroeconomic indicators are often inexact, sparse, or nonexistent, so we will focus on the data from the developed world to hone our analysis. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, or OECD, refers to North America, Western Europe, the Baltic States, Turkey, Israel, Japan, South Korea, Chile, Australia, and New Zealand. These countries compose most of the economically-advanced countries of the developed world, all of which are certainly harbingers and enactors of the neoliberal world order. These countries, as of 2010, composed 51% of the global economy, though that share is falling quite rapidly, mainly due to the Chinese and Indian miracles.²⁷ The data on these countries is well-kept and will be more than sufficient in proving Marx’s thesis under closer inspection.

From 2000 to 2015 the average worker in OECD countries went from producing $86.7 to $104.2 of revenue per hour. Many other variables are considered in this and other data explored here so as to convey an accurate picture. In 2015 the average worker in an OECD country worked 1,766 hrs./year, or 34 hrs./week, and made $41,253/year.^{29, 30} If we consider how much revenue each worker is generating per hour, that is, $104.2/hr., we can see that the average worker is producing (1,766 hrs. x $104.2) $184,017.20/year. The average worker’s real wages are less than ¼ that of their productive output. The rate of this exploitation in 2015 was ($184,017.20 / $41,253) 446% among OECD countries.
But again, the variable of time is needed in order to prove Marx’s thesis that the immiseration of the working class occurs in proportion to the overall rise in productivity and in comparison to the enrichment of the capitalist class. 2000 is the earliest year we have on our three necessary variables for all OECD countries: hours worked, average wages, and labor productivity. If the outcome is as we expect it to be, we can show its validity in the most developed capitalist economies in the world.
In 2000 average worker productivity in OECD countries was $86.7/hr., the average worker was working 1,883 hrs./year, or 36.2 hrs./week, and was making $33,530/year.^{31, 32, 33} The calculations show that the average worker was producing (1,883 hrs. x $86.7) $163,256/year. Their rate of exploitation was ($163,256 / $33,530) 487%. As of 2015 the rate of exploitation had decreased by (487% – 446%) 41% over 15 years. Productivity had risen, but not as fast as the increase in average wages and the decrease in the average work week. But this does not disprove the thesis of immiseration, which is, after all, predicated on the economic conditions of the working masses vis-a-vis that of the economic elite by way of increased productivity. All this data shows is that the working class has, on average, shared some of the gains in productivity, while still being exploited to a considerable degree.
 A component of the immiseration thesis is that real wages can increase as long as this does not interfere with the progress of accumulation by the rich. Therefore we must examine the process of accumulation. Since the 1980s, when the neoliberal project was in full swing, inequality has increased in most OECD countries. In 1990, the income of the richest 10% was roughly 7 times greater than that of the poorest 10%. As of 2015, that ratio had increased to 9.5.³⁴

See reference 35

Overall, income inequality is at its highest level in 25 years, since data collection by the OECD on this trend began. According to the OECD “only in Turkey, Chile, and Mexico has inequality fallen, but in the latter two countries the incomes of the richest are still more than 25 times those of the poorest.” Turkey, Chile, and Mexico represent three of the four most unequal countries in the OECD, with the U.S. ranking fourth. We’ll briefly mention that China and India, who represent 37% of the world’s population, have also seen increases in their already high rates of income inequality over this period.³⁶
To refine our analysis, let us ask what share of total national annual income are the top 1% of earners taking home, and, more importantly, has the rate increased over time? The answer is a resounding yes. The chart below details this development over 31 years:

See reference 37

The data above is mainly concerned with income, but what about accumulated income, or in other words total wealth? Compared to incomes, wealth is even more concentrated in OECD countries. In 2012, the bottom 40% of workers in the most developed countries in the world held, on average, only 3% of household wealth. In contrast, the richest 10% controlled half of all total household wealth, while the top 1% owned 18%. ³⁸
The punchline remains: the share of income based on increased production is being funneled into the pockets of the top decile of income earners and even more so the top 1% across almost all developed countries since the neoliberal project began. The conclusion is obvious: the economic conditions of the working class have increased very modestly, but much less in comparison to that of the wealthy sectors of society, who have absorbed most of the gains from the rise in overall productivity. Marx’s thesis is true on a global scale.
The United States: A Case Study

The U.S. has long been a haven for extreme wealth. It is home to almost half of the world’s millionaires. As of the end of 2016 there were a record 10.8 million millionaires residing in the U.S., or 44% of all millionaires globally.³⁹ On top of that, 7 of the 8 aforementioned richest men in the world reside in the U.S.⁴⁰ As these statistics and those above suggest, inequality and the relative immiseration of the working masses has increased rapidly in the United States in recent decades.

For the U.S. we can look back to 1990 since the OECD data for these three necessary variables extends that far. In 2015, the average U.S. worker productivity was $102/hr., their average salary was $58,714/year, and they worked an average of 1,790 hrs./year, or 34.4 hrs./week. Annually they produced, on average, $182,580 of wealth. The rate of exploitation was 311%. In 1990, average U.S. worker productivity was $68/hr., their average salary was $43,446/year, and they worked an average of 1,831 hrs./year, or 35.2 hrs./week.^{41, 42, 43} Annually they produced, on average, $124,508 of wealth. The rate of exploitation was 286%. While the average U.S. salary has increased, and the average work week has decreased, the productive output of the average worker outpaced both of these factors so that U.S. workers are having more of their labor exploited than they were a quarter century ago.
While this finding already implies that the U.S. working class is in worse economic shape than that of their fellow OECD workers, it still does not prove that that the former’s relative immiseration is occurring. To do this we must show that the wealthy sectors of society, namely the top 10% and top 1% have seen their incomes increase at a rate higher than that of the average worker. Unfortunately, this will prove exceedingly easy.
The top 1% of earners in the U.S. have seen their wealth increase faster than that of any other OECD country since 1981, so that their income is now around 20% of the nation’s annual total. The chart below compares this rise with the incomes of the bottom 90% of the U.S. workforce and shows real wages have stagnated for the vast majority of U.S. workers since the implementation of neoliberalism.

See reference 44.

As the graphs above and below reveal, real wages have stagnated. Between 1993 and 2011, 99% of income earners saw their annual income rise by only 6%, compared to a 58% rise for the top 1% of earners.⁴⁵ Below we see that productivity rose by 80.4% between 1973 and 2011, but median hourly pay only increased by 10.7% during that same period.⁴⁶

See reference 47.

Earnings of the above-graph mirror union membership rates, which are at an all-time low, sinking below 10% in public and private sectors combined for the first time in 80 years.

See reference 48.

As of 2016 the top 10% of families have at least $942,000, average 4 million dollars per household, and control 76% of total wealth. The next 40% of wealthiest households account for another 23% of total wealth—meaning that the bottom 50% of U.S. workers—160 million—are left to grovel over the remaining 1% of national wealth. Average household wealth was just $36,000 for those between the 26^th and 50^th percentiles, while those who are in the poorest quarter of the workforce have zero wealth and are actually $13,000 in debt on average.⁴⁹
A point of controversy for pundits of political economy in 21^st century America has been the enormous increase in CEO salaries relative to that of their employees. As of 2013 the average CEO is compensated roughly 300 times that of their average worker, and their average salary has increased by almost 1,000% since 1978.⁵⁰

See reference 51.

We can supplement our understanding of U.S. worker’s relative impoverishment, or pauperization, by putting aside the variable of time for a moment and focusing briefly on present working class conditions alone. Because the top decile of income earners takes home a vastly disproportionate amount of wealth and the top 1% even more so, the figures on average salaries are quite deceptive. The average U.S. worker is today purportedly earning $58,714. In fact, almost half of all workers in the U.S. make less than $15/hr.⁵² Based on the average hours worked stated above, almost half of U.S. workers make $26,850/year or less. The extraction of surplus value from workers, and thus the rate of exploitation, can therefore be safely assumed to be far higher than what we’ve shown here.
Bourgeois social scientists have long asserted that Marx’s immiseration thesis is an antiquated and fallacious theory. In actuality, it is one of the most well-backed theories of Marx based on modern, empirical data. The inherent drive toward the absolute impoverishment of labor in an effort to increase profit is one of the guiding principles of capital accumulation. An increase in the productivity of an enterprise therefore does not necessarily translate into an increase in average real wages, as those who preside over the means of production, can accumulate as much surplus value as they please, so long as their workers are maintained at subsistence levels. This underlying characteristic of capitalism has remained unchanged for the last 150 years.

---

References

1. Marx, Karl. 1990. “The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation.” Pp. 799 in Capital Volume I. London, England: Penguin Books
2. Laski, Harold. 1948. “Introduction.”  Communist Manifesto: Socialist Landmark. George Allen and Unwin. p. 26.
3. Marx, Karl. 1874. “Relation of Wage Labour to Capital.” Pp. 28 in Wage Labour and     Capital, edited by F. Engels. London
4. Marx, Karl. 1898. “General Relations of Profits, Wages, and Prices.” pp. 44 in Value,    Price and Profit, edited by E. M. Aveling. London
5. Marx, Karl. 1976. “The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation.” Pp. 799 in Capital Volume I
6. Marx, Karl. 1976. “The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation.” Pp. 799 in Capital Volume I
7.  2017. “Bill Gates” Forbes, May 16^th. https://www.forbes.com/profile/bill-gates/.
8. April 28^th, 2017. Gross Domestic Product 2015. World Bank.         http://databank.worldbank.org/data/download/GDP.pdf.
9. Gates, Bill., Gates, Melinda. February 14^th, 2017. Warren Buffet’s Best Investment. https://www.gatesnotes.com/2017-Annual-Letter?         WT.mc_id=02_14_2017_02_AL2017GFO_GF-GFO_&WT.tsrc=GFGFO
10. Edward, Peter. 2006. “The Ethical Poverty Line: a moral quantification of absolute poverty.” Third World Quarterly Volume 27 (Issue 2): Pp. 377-393. http://courses.arch.vt.edu/courses/wdunaway/ gia5524/ edward06.pdf
11. Hickel, Jason. 2015. “Could you live on $1.90 a day? That’s the international poverty line.” The Guardian, March 5^th.
12. Elliot, Larry. January 20^th, 2019. “World’s 26 richest people own as much as poorest 50%, says Oxfam.” The Guardian, March 5^th.
13. January 18^th, 2016. An Economy for the 1%. Oxfam. Boston, Massachusetts: Oxfam America. (https://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/fileattachments/bp210-economy-one-percent-tax-havens-180116-summ-en_0.pdf).
14. Grey, Alex. January 20^th, 2016. 3 charts that explain global inequality. World Economic Forum. (https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/3-charts-that-explain-global-inequality/)
15. Temperton, James. 2016. “The world’s 3.6 billion poorest people are getting poorer.”Wired, January 18^th
16. Slater, Jon. January 19^th, 2013. Annual income of 100 richest people enough to end global poverty four times over. Oxfam (https://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressreleases/2013-01-19/annual-income-richest-100-people-enough-end-global-poverty-four)
17. United Nations. Food and Agricultural Organization. Key facts on food loss and waste you should know!, SAVE FOOD: Global Initiative on Food Loss and Waste Reduction
18. UNICEF. 2017. Undernutrition contributes to nearly half of all deaths in children under 5 and is widespread in Asia and Africa
19. February 15^th, 2015. The Cost to End World Hunger. The Borgen Project. Seattle, Washington.  (https://borgenproject.org/the-cost-to-end-world-hunger/)
20. Davies, James., Lluberas, Rodrigo., Shorrocks, Anthony. November 22^nd, 2016. The Global Wealth Report 2016. Credit Suisse. (https://www.credit-suisse.com/us/en/about-us/research/research-institute/news-and-videos/articles/news-and-expertise/2016/11/en/the-global-wealth-report-2016.html)
21. 2017. Nominal GDP: Billions of Dollars. International Monetary Fund.(http://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/NGDPD@WEO/OEMDC/ADVEC/WEOWORLD)
22. 2017. The Global Competitiveness Report 2016-2017. World Economic Forum.                                  (http://reports.weforum.org/global-competitiveness-index/box-2-the-global-productivity-slowdown-five-hypotheses/)
23. http://delong.typepad.com/print/20061012_LRWGDP.pdf
24. The World Bank. 2017. “GDP growth (annual %)”(http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZGend=2015&locations=EG1W&name_desc=true&start=2000)
25. Landon, Thomas Jr. 2017. “IMF raises 2017 Outlook for Global Economic Growth.”NYTimes, April 18^th
26. WorldOmeters. 2017. “Current World Population.”(http://www.worldometers.info/world-                population/)
27. OECD. 2010. Economy: Developing countries set to account for 60% of world GDP by 2030, according to new estimates. (http://www.oecd.org/dev/pgd/economydevelopingcountriessettoaccountfornearly60ofworldgdpby2030accordingtonewestimates.htm)
28. OECD. 2017. Hours Worked. (https://data.oecd.org/emp/hours-worked.htm)
29. OECD. 2017. GDP per hour worked. (https://data.oecd.org/lprdty/gdp-per-hour-worked.htm)
30. OECD. 2017. Average wages. ( https://data.oecd.org/earnwage /average-wages.htm)
31. OECD. 2017. Hours worked. (https://data.oecd.org/emp/hours-worked.htm)
32. OECD. 2017. GDP per hour worked. (https://data.oecd.org/ lprdty/gdp-per-hour-worked.htm)
33. OECD. 2017. Average wages. (https://data.oecd.org/earnwage/average-wages.htm)
34. OECD. 2017. Inequality. ( http://www.oecd.org/social/inequality.htm#wellbeing)
35. Murtin, Fabrice., Mira d’Ercole, Marco., June 2017. Household wealth inequality across                  OECD countries: new OECD evidence. OECD. (https://www.oecd.org/std/household-wealth-inequality-across-OECD-countries- OECDSB21.pdf)
36. OECD. 2017. Inequality.  (http://www.oecd.org/social/ inequality.htm)
37. Llena Nozal, Ana., Forster, Michael. May 2014. “FOCUS on Top Incomes and Taxation in OECD countries: Was the crisis a game changer?” OECD. Retrieved May 14^th, 2017 (http://www.oecd.org/social/OECD2014-FocusOnTopIncomes.pdf)
38. OECD. 2015. “OECD Forum 2015: Inequality in Figures.” (http://www.oecd.org/forum/issues/oecd-forum-2015-income-inequality-in-figures.htm)
39. Clifford, Catherine. 2017. “A record number of Americans are now millionaires, new    study shows.” CNBC, March 24^th
40. Institute for Policy Studies. 2015. “Global Inequality.” (http://inequality.org/global-inequality/)
41. OECD. 2017. GDP per hour worked.  (https://data.oecd.org/lprdty/gdp-per-hour-worked.htm)
42. OECD. 2017. Hours worked.  (https://data.oecd.org/emp/hours-worked.htm)
43. OECD. 2017. Averaged wages. (https://data.oecd.org/earnwage/average-wages.htm)
44. Mishel, Lawrence., Gould, Elise., Bivens, Josh, January 6^th, 2015. Wage Stagnation in Nine Charts. Economic Policy Institute. (http://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/)
45. Luhby, Tami. 2013. “Why America’s middle class is losing ground.” CNN, March 5^th
46. Luhby, Tami. 2013. “Workers don’t share in companies’ productivity gains.” CNN, March 7th
47. Mishel, Lawrence., Gould, Elise., Bivens, Josh, January 6^th, 2015. Wage Stagnation in Nine Charts. Economic Policy Institute. (http://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/)
48. Sahadi, Jeanne. 2016. “The richest 10% hold 76% of the wealth.” CNN, August 18^th
49. Mishel, Lawrence., Gould, Elise., Bivens, Josh, January 6^th, 2015. Wage Stagnation in Nine Charts. Economic Policy Institute. (http://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/)
50. Davis, Alyssa., Michel, Lawrence. June 12^th, 2014. “CEO Pay Continues to Rise as Typical Workers Are Paid Less.” Economic Policy Institute. (http://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-pay-continues-to-rise/)
51. Davis, Alyssa., Michel, Lawrence. June 12^th, 2014. “CEO Pay Continues to Rise as Typical Workers Are Paid Less.” Economic Policy Institute. (http://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-pay-continues-to-rise/)
52. Chen, Michelle. 2015. “Almost Half of All American Workers Make Less than $15 an   Hour.” The Nation, November 11^th
53.  U.S. Census Bureau. 2016. “Income and Poverty in the United States: 2015.” (ttps://       www.census.gov/library/publications/2016/demo/p60-256.html)

Source :  https://regenerationmag.org/the-actuality-of-marxs-immiseration-thesis-in-the-21st-century/?fbclid=IwAR13z3IgUszZk0HVwHNJ7Pt8q4tKVTCM4rsGSceggGvR9FHyFmJRp9rvLVs