From: ajit sinha (sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM)
Date: Sat Nov 29 2003 - 00:46:35 EST
--- "michael a. lebowitz" <mlebowit@SFU.CA> wrote: > At 22:14 27/11/2003 -0800, you wrote: > >--- "michael a. lebowitz" <mlebowit@SFU.CA> wrote: > > > At 23:24 26/11/2003 -0800, ajit wrote: > > > > For you, real > > > >wages are a direct function of productivity > (q). My > > > >point has been that for Marx the real wages are > not > > > a > > > >function of productivity. > > > > > > Why? Why--- given that productivity increases > lower > > > the value of wage goods? > >__________________________ > > > >Good! so at least now you accept that, at least for > >you, there is a direct relation between labor > >productivity and real wages, because earlier you > were > >denying making any such linkages. That's why I had > to > >belabor on this point. The answer to your why > question > >is that the fall in the value of wage goods due to > >productivity increases may have nothing to do with > >real wages. > > Ajit, the question that I am asking is--- how could > a fall in the values of > wage goods NOT lead to rising real wages? I'm > looking for a rational > reconstruction of Marx's position. I think my > position (which proposes that > the effect of the substitution of machinery on money > wages is a > necessary--- although insufficiently acknowledged--- > condition) is pretty > clear by now. What's yours? From your last posts, > I'm beginning to think > that we are not in disagreement--- that we only > disagree on what can be > found in Marx. > in solidarity, > michael _______________________________ Okay! now let me make two points (or perhaps more). First of all, I do not think Marx's theory of wages needs a rational reconstruction since it is in its own terms a pretty rational theory. One could reject the theory on the grounds that it does not fit the data or the experience of the modern capitalist economies. So let's suppose both of us believe that given the real world experience we need to either modify Marx's theory or replace it with a completely new theory. Now if we are in a business of modifying Marx's theory, then we will have to first agree on what is Marx's theory. And there I think we will have disagreement. But in any case, to do either of the things mentioned above we will need to develop a comprehensive theory of wages, which at the present time both of us don't have. To say that a fall in the value of the given real wage basket because of rise in labor productivity must imply a rise in real wages is not very meaningful. Why couldn't it just mean that the rate of surplus value rises? I don't think the idea of money wages help here at all. First of all, I have a feeling that many people don't know Keynes's argument for why workers bargain over money wages. His argument was that workers of various sectors bargain over wage contract separately and so they oppose a money wage cut because they think that by doing so they would lose their relative wage position in the wage hierarchy. That's why a general real wage decline through inflation is not fought so bitterly by labor. Thus if theoretically there was only one trade union representing all the workers, there will be no problem in accepting a lower money wages across the board. Secondly, wage contracts are not only about money wages. Wages are a packet including lots of benefits, which are not money contracts--and workers during bad times for the firms do accept major cuts in these packages--so it is a myth to think that workers have wage illusion and they only bargain over money wages. Now, coming to your point. Let us assume that money wages are fixed for some reason. Does that imply that a rise in labor productivity must lead to a rise in real wages? Definitely not! A fall in the value of goods does not imply that its money price falls. A fall in the value of goods could very well be correlated with a rise in the money prices of goods, which has been the general case in the long history of capitalism. So I think your premise is not right. Let us take one step further. Let us assume that you are working with commodity money. Now, let's suppose increase in labor productivity has led to fall in the value of all commodities by 50%, in this case the same amount of money wage would contain half the value of money wage it previously did. So assuming no value-price deviation, the present money wage will buy the half the value of what it was buying previously, which in the new situation would mean exactly the same real wage as previously. So, where does it leave your case for rational reconstruction? 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 : Sun Nov 30 2003 - 00:00:01 EST