On Thu, 9 Dec 2010, Dave Zachariah wrote:
> On 9 December 2010 01:50, Ian Wright <wrighti@acm.org> wrote:
> >
> > However, I think that in Dave's empirical work he actually got
> > hold of independent labor hours worked (from government
> > studies), and found the same close correlation. So no
> > circularity here. Is that correct Dave? Or do I misremember?
>
> You are right. The Swedish data sets contains figures on the labour
> input measured in 1000 persons per annum for each sector. Hence the
> estimated labour values of Swedish industry outputs are *not*
> 'aggregate dollar costs' but labour content...
In work that Paul Cockshott and I have done using UK input-output
tables the sectoral direct labour inputs are in the first instance
given in money terms (wage bill), but it is possible to back out a
reasonable approximation to actual hours: one can divide the
sectoral wage bills by sectoral average wage rates (obtained from
other data sources). Paul and I found that doing so did not make
much difference to the results.
> Bichler & Nitzan's claim that "labour values, just like utils,
> cannot be shown to exist" is hard to sustain.
I agree, but "hard to sustain" is putting it mildly!
Allin Cottrell
_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Wed Dec 15 22:39:32 2010
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Dec 31 2010 - 00:00:02 EST