In ope-l 3545, Paul Cockshott wrote
"If the wage costs actually were zero, the degree of intensity of labour would
be a matter of indifference. A halving of intensity could always be
compensated for at no cost by using twice as many workers. There would then be
no reason
to spend real money to intensify labour."
I have already noted that although Paul wishes to reduce the issue to one of
intensity, it cannot be so reduced. The point is not that firms would spend
money to intensify labor, but that they have an incentive to SUBSTITUTE
MACHINES FOR WORKERS, REPLACE LIVING LABOR WITH DEAD LABOR, MECHANIZE,
AUTOMATE, ROBOTIZE in order to reduce repression costs -- even if v were to
equal zero.
As I have shown, but which is self-evident anyway, if the extra machine cost
per unit of output is less than the repression costs per unit of output which
are saved, then it is cost effective to replace workers with machines when v =
0.
Forget neoclassical substitution theorems. We are talking about technical
change.
Andrew Kliman