From: michael a. lebowitz (mlebowit@SFU.CA)
Date: Fri Dec 05 2003 - 11:50:40 EST
At 23:19 01/12/2003 -0800, ajit wrote:
>This is elementary. Suppose your money is silver. Now
>twice the amount of silver is produced in the same
>amount of direct and indirect labor time. Thus the
>value of the same money wage (let's say 5 pounds of
>silver) is half than what it was before. Similarly the
>value of all other goods have become half too. So now,
>given no value-price deviation, the given money wage
>will buy exactly the same amount of real goods and
>services, which in value terms will be simply half the
>value it used to have. The workers simply cannot buy
>double the amount of goods and services. The value of
>their given money wages have fallen exactly to the
>same proportion than the value of the real wage goods.
>So, where is the confusion? Cheers, ajit sinha
> >
When I asked why real wages would not rise as the result of productivity
increases in the production of wage goods, all other things equal, I was
implicitly assuming no productivity increases in the production of the
money commodity (since I didn't think of that as a wage good). What if you
assumed that?
in solidarity,
michael
>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
>http://companion.yahoo.com/
---------------------
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Dec 07 2003 - 00:00:00 EST