On Allin's reply, I think we're starting the "dance in circles" which often
happens when you come at an issue from different perspectives. I'll try to
put a clarifying position.
Take the example of typing training again, and start with the labor-time
inputs of both trainer and trainee. Assume that training adds to
productivity by embodying the labor-time equivalent of the time spent in
training in the value output of the skilled worker. Don't assume any skilled
to unskilled productivity level for the trainer--leave this to an iterative
calculation.
Also start with the presumption that, as you've argued, touch typing
completely dominates single finger typing, so that the component of the
value of labor-power due to typing input is based upon touch typists, not
single fingers. Also presume that typing is a basic--it isn't of course, but
the example is a good one where the increase in productivity can be measured
quantitatively.
Then see whether you can reach the conclusion we agree with, the
touch-typing training could double the productivity of a single finger
typist. My assertion is that you can't: the best you'll do is a tiny
increase in productivity--much smaller than we know to be the truth. This
was Bohm-Bawerk's case, and this is the one that Hilferding countered, on
the basis that training transmits both the exchange-value of training (which
is what the above measures) and its use-value (which is independent of its
exchange-value). This is why training can be a source of additional surplus
value--over and above the impact of cheapening labor-power, which I'm
specifically excluding in the above.
I gave my version of the above in an earlier post, for a 3 year
apprenticeship, and got a ratio (recursively derived, hence omitting the
need to assume a ratio for the skilled labor input of the trainer) of 1.2
Cheers,
Steve
<snip>
IMO, the things that have to be
>"de-coupled" are (a) the physical productivity increase due
>to training, and (b) the labour-time input to the production
>of skill -- but then, as I tried to show with the typing
>example, there's really no temptation to couple these in the
>first place. That is, there's no paradox in the idea that a
>training process that doubles a worker's physical
>productivity (output per hour of direct labour) might
>involve (say) a mere one percent increase in the total
>labour-time transmitted to the product (both directly and
>indirectly via the training) per clock hour. There _would_
>be a paradox if one "read" the doubling of physical
>productivity as a doubling of _value_ productivity; but
>Paul's argument, with which Steve says he agrees, implies
>that is the wrong way to think about things. (I.e., if the
>training were taken as doubling the workers' value
>productivity, it would appear to create a source of extra
>surplus value independently of the machanism Paul specified,
>namely a reduction in the value of labour power just as
>per 'ordinary' technical progress.)
>
>Allin.
>
>
>
>
Steve Keen
Senior Lecturer
Economics & Finance
University of Western Sydney
PO Box 555 Campbelltown NSW 2560
Australia
s.keen@uws.edu.au (046) 20-3254 Fax (046) 26-6683
________________________________________________________________