Duncan wrote :(in OPE-L:5208)
>..the new Interpretation defines the value of labor-power as the wage
> divided by the value added(including luxury goods) at market prices.
> The independence of the profit rate from the luxury sector is a
> consequence of holding the workers' consumption constant, not of
> the replacement cost interpretation.
I entirely agree with Duncan on this point.
Does the definition of value of labor-power as the value of wage goods
lie at the heart of Sraffian interpretation of the labor theory of
value, I think.Labor-power as the special commodity cannot be treated
in the context of the problematic of 'production of commodities by
means of commodities'. TSS theorists, like Andrew, define the value of
labor-power as the value of wage goods. And they might argue that
there arises no problem unless we accept the simultaneous valuation of
the inputs(& the outputs). But the reason ther arises no problem is that
they define the value of labor-power in the meaning of ex-post.
Rieu