[OPE-L:3481] Re: More on skilled labour

Steve Keen (s.keen@uws.edu.au)
Sat, 19 Oct 1996 15:31:20 -0700 (PDT)

[ show plain text ]

Re Paul's comment on my post re skilled labor increasing surplus value:

Paul Cockshott wrote:
> <snip>
> Extra surplus value, in this case relative surplus value will only have
> been created to the extent that typing enters into the necessary labour
> time of workers in general. If training doubles productivity, and if
> the real wages remains fixed, then surplus value in the economy as a whole
> will rise by one half of the amount of typing labour that was directly
> and indirectly embodied in the real wage.
> In this respect training is equivalent to technical change.
> Paul Cockshott
> wpc@cs.strath.ac.uk
> http://www.cs.strath.ac.uk/CS/Biog/wpc/index.html

Agreed. My point is that this analysis is only possible if you
"de-couple" the value-productivity impact of training from its
value-input (which then lets you begin with a hypothesis like "suppose
training [doubles/triples/sextuples] productivity"). This is feasible
with Hilferding's use-value/exchange-value analysis, but not with the
Sweezy/Meek approach.