[ show plain text ]
> 3. Contrary to your suggestion, it does not follow from the above that we
> have to "include the wage as labour time that is passed on in just the
> way as Marx treats raw material inputs." For one thing, at least as far
> I can tell Marx didn't argue that the contribution of used-up raw
> to value should be measured by their prices, so the suggested parallel is
> false. Second, there is no need to refer to wages--one instead calculates
> the labor embodied in the production of specific skills (teachers,
> classroom buildings, etc.). I reiterate that while this introduces
> complications, the latter are not of a sort different from that
> in the value-theoretic treatment of physical capital. What you have here
> is a specific version of production with heterogeneous capital goods.
> Complex yes, but neither novel nor paradoxical.
I was imprecise in my original posting. Instead of putting in wages, I
have written the 'labour necessary to reproduce labour power'. I was making
the implicit assumption that wages were equal to values and thus equal
to the labour necessary to reproduce labour power. I agree that one
can not always assume that it holds.
I should perhaps not have called it a paradox, instead, just an
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 31 2000 - 07:00:06 EST