From: ajit sinha (sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM)
Date: Mon Nov 24 2003 - 01:27:17 EST
I wrote: > >I don't understand what you mean by your last > >proposition. But I doubt we can get anywhere unless > >you specify your theory of wages. Do you think that > >real wages are determined by the degree of > separation > >between the working class or you think that it is a > >function of labor productivity or something else? > This > >is the most crucial point in making sense of your > >problem. Cheers, ajit sinha Mike L responds: > > I think the real wage is determined by class > struggle. I represent it as > depending upon the degree of separation of workers > (with both capital and > workers attempting to act on this variable), and I > propose that if the > degree of separation is constant, then a fall in the > values of wage-goods > as the result of productivity increases will mean > that real wages rise. > That increase in real wages will be the result of > successful class struggle > by workers since only this will keep money wages > constant (in the commodity > money case). > in solidarity, > michael ________________________ Mike, this is what I thought, and that's why from the begining I have been saying that your argument or the problem is running in a circle. Once you say that the real wage is determined by the class struggle or the degree of separation of the workers, then you cannot say that now I want to see how the real wages would behave when the degree of separation remains constant and some other variable changes. Because if the real wage was only the function of the degree of separation of the workers then once it is held constant then there is no theoretical reason for it to change. Thus when you say that you want to see how the real wages would change when some other variable, in this case labor productivity, changes, you are in effect saying that the real wages are determined by two factors (1) the degree of separation of the workers, and the other variable, in this case the productivity of the labor. Now given this, when you read out the changes in the real wage due to changes in the productivity of labor, given the separation of workers constant, you are in effect drawing a relationship between the real wages and the labor productivity. So your theory simply says that labor productivity has positive impact on real wages, it is not drawing any implication of what happens if the degree of separation remains constant, it is not throwing any light on the question of degree of separation of the workers and its relation to real wages. Now let me try to make a case for you: I think you need to argue that labor productivity affects degree of separation, and for your kind of hypothesis, positively. So when labor productivity rises, the degree of separation increases, which in turn raises the real wage. In this case your degree of separation is not given by the rate of surplus value. So you have a job cut our for you. First of all you will have to develop some way of measuring or quantifying the degree of separation of workers (s/v will not do, can only create circularity in your argument). Then you will have to develop a theory that shows how labor productivity affects the degree of separation, and then develop a theory of real wages that shows how real wages are determined by degree of separation. So the dominant causality runs from labor productivity to degree of separation to real wages. I hope this is of some help. Cheers, ajit sinha > --------------------- > Michael A. Lebowitz > Professor Emeritus > Economics Department > Simon Fraser University > Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6 > Office Fax: (604) 291-5944 > Home: Phone (604) 689-9510 __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now http://companion.yahoo.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Nov 26 2003 - 00:00:01 EST