Re: the real wage, and the production of surplus value

From: ajit sinha (sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM)
Date: Sat Dec 06 2003 - 00:47:42 EST

--- "michael a. lebowitz" <mlebowit@SFU.CA> wrote:
> At 23:19 01/12/2003 -0800, ajit wrote:
> >This is elementary. Suppose your money is silver.
> Now
> >twice the amount of silver is produced in the same
> >amount of direct and indirect labor time. Thus the
> >value of the same money wage (let's say 5 pounds of
> >silver) is half than what it was before. Similarly
> the
> >value of all other goods have become half too. So
> now,
> >given no value-price deviation, the given money
> wage
> >will buy exactly the same amount of real goods and
> >services, which in value terms will be simply half
> the
> >value it used to have. The workers simply cannot
> buy
> >double the amount of goods and services. The value
> of
> >their given money wages have fallen exactly to the
> >same proportion than the value of the real wage
> goods.
> >So, where is the confusion? Cheers, ajit sinha
> > >
> When I asked why real wages would not rise as the
> result of productivity
> increases in the production of wage goods, all other
> things equal, I  was
> implicitly assuming no productivity increases in the
> production of the
> money commodity (since I didn't think of that as a
> wage good). What if you
> assumed that?
>          in solidarity,
>           michael

But Mike, as I have said earlier, when you make an
equation such as U = Bq/X, and say that U will rise if
Bq remains constant and X falls. My answer to it is
that you have said nothing beyond asserting that U =
Bq/X, because every child knows the algebraic property
of such as simple equation. So if there is anything
interesting about this it has to be the question about
how does one get the equation U = Bq/X, and which way
the causality run in the equation. But you don't seem
to be interested in this discussion. When I said that
the premise that paper money prices of goods and
services must fall with an increase in productivity is
not necessarily acceptable, you seem to be not
interested in discussing it either (as you simply cut
that part out of discussion). So let me ask you again,
what is interesting about the proposition that GIVEN
that commodity money value remains constant and GIVEN
that workers commodity-money wages remain constant and
GIVEN that equal values exchange in the market, THEN a
fall in the value of wage goods would imply a rise in
the real wages of the workers! What's the big deal
here? Am I missing something? Cheers, ajit sinha
> >__________________________________
> >Do you Yahoo!?
> >Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
> >
> ---------------------
> Michael A. Lebowitz
> Professor Emeritus
> Economics Department
> Simon Fraser University
> Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6
> Office Fax:   (604) 291-5944
> Home:   Phone (604) 689-9510

Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Dec 08 2003 - 00:00:00 EST