Economists commonly give credit to Gary Becker and Jacob MIncer for the development of the theory of "human capital." But at least according to Marx, political economists of the late 17th century such as William Petty developed the theory first. Here's Marx's critique, from volume III of CAPITAL, ch. 29 (three pages into the chapter or http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch29.htm#r1):
>>Wages are conceived here as interest, and therefore labour-power as the >>capital yielding this interest. For example, if the wage for one year amounts >>to £50 and the rate of interest is 5%, the annual labour-power is equal to a >>capital of £1,000. The insanity ["absurdity" in the Vintage/Penguin edition] >>of the capitalist mode of conception reaches its climax here, for instead of >>explaining the expansion of capital on the basis of the exploitation of >>labour-power, the matter is reversed and the productivity of labour power is >>explained by attributing this mystical quality of interest-bearing capital to >>labour-power itself. In the second half of the 17th century, this used to be >>a favourite conception (for example, of Petty), but it is used even nowadays >>in all seriousness by some vulgar economists and more particularly by some >>German statisticians... Unfortunately two disagreeably frustrating facts mar >>this thoughtless conception. In the first place, the labourer must work in >>order to obtain this interest. In the second place, he cannot transform the >>capital-value of his labour-power into cash by transferring it. Rather, the >>annual value of his labour-power is equal to his average annual wage, and >>what he has to give the buyer in return through his labour is this same value >>plus a surplus-value, i.e., the increment added by his labour. In a slave >>society, the labourer has a capital-value, namely, his purchase price. And >>when he is hired out, the hirer must pay, in the first place, the interest on >>this purchase price, and, in addition, replace the annual wear and tear on >>the capital.<< Of course, modern NC economists do not consider any theory to actually have existed unless it is stated in mathematical form (as a "model").[*] So Becker or Mincer can claim originality because William Petty and the Vulgar Economists (sounds like a rock group!) didn't state their theory mathematically. -- Jim Devine / "The conventional view serves to protect us from the painful job of thinking." - John Kenneth Galbraith [*] to Chicago sorts, it's not just _any_ model that is acceptable. It must involve optimization and a unique equilibrium. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
