I discuss human capital, but I go all the way back to the early effort to move economics from labor to transactions. I posted an introduction almost a year ago. It has changed a great deal, but it will still give you a pretty good idea of what is going on.
http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com/2007/11/10/revised-introduction-the-invisible-handcuffs/ On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 11:20:59AM -0400, Rudy Fichtenbaum wrote: > Michael, > > I don't know if you have addressed this issue in your book. It seems to me > that part of the disappearance of labor as a meaningful category in > mainstream labor economics coincides with the development of human capital > theory. With the advent of human capital theory there is no longer any > labor at all. We are all capitalists and output is a function of various > types of capital (physical and human). We all make investment decisions and > maximize our rates of return. > > Rudy > > > > Michael Perelman wrote: >> Many of you know that I am finishing up a book manuscript regarding the >> exclusion of work, workers and working conditions from economic theory. >> This part jumps into the middle of a section. The meat of the post is >> really in the third and fourth paragraphs, where I do a JSTOR survey of >> the almost total exclusion from economics. Fans of Martin Feldstein may >> appreciate his contribution. >> >> >> In short, the exclusion of work, workers, and working conditions was not >> simply an accidental oversight. First, it served an important purpose in >> defending the capitalism from the accusation of exploitation. Second, any >> analysis based on labor would call out for both impossible quantification >> and more difficult mathematics. Utility, however, seemed to permit >> economists to avoid the need for quantification, while seeming to simplify >> mathematical complexities. Finally, utility seemed to be capable of >> fitting in with the type of models that economists were using in their >> quest to emulate physics with its mathematics of maximization. >> As Phil Mirowski noted, "Production, as conventionally understood, does >> not "fit" in neoclassical value theory" (Mirowski 1989, p. 284). In >> short, ideology, mathematical convenience, and scientific ambitions all >> combined to sweep work, workers, and working conditions under the rug. >> The radical shift from labor to extreme subjectivity in which consumer's >> unmeasurable preferences became the center of economic analysis sealed >> labor's marginalization in the theoretical world of economic theory. >> Other fields, such as sociology, industrial relations, or psychology >> seriously explore questions of work, workers or working conditions, but >> economics does not. >> >> An August 8, 2008 search of 73 economics journals collected electronically >> in the JSTOR database revealed how marginal work, workers, and working >> conditions has become in economic literature. Of the articles published >> since January 2004, the term "working conditions" appeared in only 12, not >> counting four more substantial articles in the Review of African Political >> Economy, a journal rarely cited by mainstream economists. Of the >> remaining articles, three concerned the problem of retention of teachers. >> Another had a footnote that observed that people can learn about working >> conditions from websites. One article noted that faculty members in >> colleges and universities join unions to improve working conditions. A >> book review considered whether globalization could improve working >> conditions. Two articles mentioned legislation that took working >> conditions into account. One article disputed that child labor abroad >> experienced hideous working conditions. Another cited a mid-nineteenth >> century British economist who said that factory working conditions were >> good. >> >> My favorite entry was from Martin Feldstein, whose contempt for spiteful >> egalitarian was discussed earlier. This article was one of his many >> attacks on Social Security that proposed that good working conditions >> should be treated as taxable income (Feldstein 2005, p. 36). None of the >> articles offered any evidence of serious engagement with work, workers, or >> working conditions. In contrast, a search for sociologists' articles with >> the term "working conditions" that covered ten fewer journals, returned >> 107 articles. >> >> At the same time as questions of labor were disappearing, economics began >> to elevate the status of investors' financial claims, insisting that >> owners of this form of property had rights equal to those of owners of >> real goods, such as land or factories. Even something as ephemeral as >> "good will" became recognized as property. >> >> >> -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University >> Chico, CA 95929 >> >> Tel. 530-898-5321 >> E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu >> michaelperelman.wordpress.com >> _______________________________________________ >> pen-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l >> > > -- > Rudy Fichtenbaum > Professor of Economics & Chief Negotiator AAUP-WSU > Department of Economics > Wright State University > Dayton, OH 45435 > Phone: 937-775-3085 > Fax: 937-775-2441 > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu michaelperelman.wordpress.com _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
