IWAO
----
Then company A adopted training which enables workers to produce 2
units/hour
without change of intensity and costs 1000 unit value per person. If A's
share is 50%, the value added to each PC declines to 0.75 unit value. If
wage is 0.5 unit value/hour, surplus represented per hour by A rises to 1
unit value from 0.5 unit value while others decline to 0.25 from 0.5 in
average. So over 2000 hours will reward to A's <speculation> on training.
I believe this case is not inconsistent with Paul C's thought. is it?
PAUL C
------
No I agree with it. But this is a particular case of the production of
relative surplus value. Just as with the standard cases, it involves a
reduction in the average social time required to produce something. Since
there is a dispersion of individual firms around the mean in terms of
productivity, those with more productive labour appropriate a
disproportioate share of the surplus value produced, but the aggregate
surplus value does not change unless the value of the wage changes. Thus
differences in skill may affect the distribution of surplus value but do
not act as an independent source of it.