[OPE-L:5468] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More Intense Labor

From: Gerald_A_Levy (Gerald_A_Levy@email.msn.com)
Date: Mon Apr 30 2001 - 08:32:47 EDT


A further thought in response to Rakesh's [5466]:

> > But that it's unreasonable to assume that a
> > capitalist could
> > double the intensity of labor without increasing
> > the real wage.

What then is the effect of an increase of the
intensity of labor on the real wage? 

If there is an increase in the intensity of labor
it means that either a constant output can be 
able to be produced with less workers working
less working hours or an increasing output 
can be able to be produced with a constant 
amount of workers working a constant amount
of working hours. 

If output is constant, then the increase in the
intensity of labor means that capitalists can
produce that output with less workers working
less working hours. Unless there is a reduction
in the length of the working day and/or 
workweek (i.e. a reduction in absolute surplus 
value), then this will result in an expansion
of the industrial reserve army. And when the
relative surplus population expands, that tends
to exert a downward pressure on (both money
and real) wages. 

Now consider the other possibility: i.e. where
an increase in the intensity of labor results in an
increased production of output with the same
amount of workers working the same amount of 
working hours.  There is no mechanism that
ensures in this case that real wages will go up
and indeed there is no mechanism that requires
in this case that the individual prices of the
commodities that are produced with the intensified
labor will go down.  If that results in an over-
production of commodities, then firms can 
respond by cutting back on production and 
thereby laying workers off. Result -- the same as
above (i.e. an increased size of the IRA and
a downward pressure on money and real
wages).   This might not be the case, though, if
there is sufficient demand abroad. In that case,
capitalists can export these commodities 
to other markets. In that case, the size of the
IRA in the country or origin might not increase
with an increase in the intensity of labor but
there is no reason to suppose either that
their real wages will increase. Indeed, after
capital has been successful in increasing the
intensity of labor then the bargaining power
of workers tends to be lower (since they have
just suffered a defeat) which, in turn, tends to
also aid capitalist efforts to decrease money 
wages (and thereby hand the working class
another defeat). 

Of course, an increase in the intensity of labor
can also be an effect as well as a cause. E.g.
suppose that the IRA grows for other reasons
(e.g. labor-saving technical change; a cyclical
crisis).  As the IRA grows, that increases the
bargaining power of capital vis-a-vis labor
and makes it increasingly possible to succeed 
in increasing the intensity of labor.  This is
a well-known phenomenon for industrial
workers who often experience an attempted
speed-up immediately after a lay-off.  Yet,
if capital succeeds in further intensifying labor
then they can (and often do) lay-off
additional workers as a consequence. It
goes without saying that these working class
defeats do not necessarily raise money or 
real wages. 

It is for the above (and other)  reasons, that 
workers often fiercely resist attempts by capital 
to increase the intensity of labor.  For the same
reason,  capital always attempts to increase the
intensity of  labor wherever possible. 

A curious development is what happens after
a lay-off where workers are represented by
a Union and where lay-offs are based on 
seniority.  One might think that workers will
resist  capital's attempt to increase the
intensity of labor *more* under these
circumstances since they should realize that
if capital is successful then additional jobs
will be lost.  More often than not this doesn't
happen. That is due in part to the additional
*fear* of being laid-off.  So they are more
likely to "do as they are told" with this
spread of fear which in turn can undermine the
solidarity and militancy of the workers and the
Union  and then lead to more lay-offs. A
more effective strategy, of course, would be 
to succeed in bringing about a decrease in the
length of the workweek and/or working day
with no loss in pay (and thereby a reduction 
in absolute surplus value) but this is by no
means an easy fight in which the outcome is 
pre-determined.

In solidarity, Jerry



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed May 02 2001 - 00:00:06 EDT