Paul's answer to Iwao's question returns us to the perspective that
skilled labor simply reproduces the value involved in training, which
argues that education cannot therefore be a source of additional surplus
value. As I've commented in an earlier post, Hilferding--who is one of
only 4 marxists who considered this systematically (the others being
Sweezy, Meek & Harvey)--reached a quite different conclusion.
I also note that Paul's one literal answer of Paul's answer is that
labor adds no value at all! Of course, what he means is that surplus
value comes only from simple labor, correct?
Cheers,
Steve Keen
Paul Cockshott wrote:
>
> Iwao
> >(1) hourly value added by skilled labour
> > =hourly value added by simple labour + education cost/lifetime (working)
> hours
> >
> >(2) hourly value added by skilled labour is determined independently from
> > hourly value added by simple labour + education cost/lifetime (working)
> hours
> >
> >If you would take (1), then you would assume that education is a process of
> >value transfer. If you would take (2), then education would be a process of
> 'production'
> >of value creating power.
> >
> >I'm sympathetic to (2).
> >
>
> Paul C:
> Depends what you think value is. I think that value is a measure of the
> cost to society of producing something, in which case (1) is the correct
> measure.
> Paul Cockshott
>
> wpc@cs.strath.ac.uk
> http://www.cs.strath.ac.uk/CS/Biog/wpc/index.html