# [OPE-L:3543] RE: Productive and Unproductive Labour

S.Mohun (S.Mohun@qmw.ac.uk)
Mon, 28 Oct 1996 02:04:25 -0800 (PST)

[ show plain text ]

Andrew wrote in ope-l 3525:

>I did not understand the following: "I would prefer to say that V is the
>value of labour-power per hour of labour hired multiplied by the number of
>hours of labour-power hired. When V is multiplied by the value of money it is
>then the total wage bill. But this is a different conception of the monetary
>expression of value, the inverse of the value of money. I think it is defined
>by Andrew's equation above. I think that Andrew defines it differently."
>Could you explain this please, Simon?
>
In the Dumenil-Foley approach, the ratio of labour-value-added (LVA) to
money-value-added (MVA) is the value of money (VM), and its inverse is the
monetary expression of value. This is all in value added terms; it is not
the ratio of total value to total price, which is in gross rather than net
terms. It is this latter to which I think (but am not sure) that Andrew is
more sympathetic.
Also, the value of labour-power per hour of labour-power hired (VLP) is the
wage rate per hour (w) multiplied by VM. So
VLP = wVM
Multiply both sides by L. On the left hand side interpret L as the number of
hours of labour-power hired, and on the right hand side as the number of
hours of labour worked, which needs a strong underlying assumption.
Then VLP.L = wL.VM where wL is total wages W. So
VLP.L = W.VM
Hence total wages multiplied by the value of money is total variable capital.

Unfortunately, when I wrote
When V is multiplied by the value of money it is then the total wage bill
I should have written
When V is multiplied by the monetary expression of value it is then the
total wage bill.