Iwao:
I see explicitly the disagreement point between Paul and I.
Paul thinks training is intermediate input for the production
where the trained labor is employed. I don't agree with this.
I think training is production of skilled labor.
Necessary for the product, a database system in this case, is not
the training but the labor by the trained worker. I don't see any
reason to reject this view in the case above. Training on windoze
coding by unix experts in this case is 'necessary'. But all they
do is adding windoze coding skill to their own labor power. Thus
their training becomes _indirectly_ necessary for building a database
on windoze.
Paul C
------
The fact that training is indirectly neccessary to making
something, does not make it any less necessary. If it is
necessary, then the time spent on it is socially neccessary
time for the production of the product, and counts as part
of the value of the product.
Also note, that in practice when people are trained they do not
only produce their own skills, they also produce a material product
besides. Outside of educational institutions, people are trained
by being put to work making things, the longer they do it the
better they get.
Iwao
----
At the same time, I still believe
political economy answers why capitalists employ training/education.
Paul
----
If they did not provide training, or have it provided by the state
they could not produce. Need one say anything more at this level?
There are of course questions about how training enters into the
formation of classes and stratifications within classes, which
are interesting and important.