Dipping into "academic deconstructions" of Chapman's work seems a real distraction from WHAT? First of all I don't do academic deconstructions of Chapman's work. I have constructed spreadsheets that use Chapman's theory to test the kind of hypotheses that Jim Devine appears capable of deciding by pulling answers out of the air: "if the productivity per hour of labor-power hired rises, in situations of low aggregate demand such as the present capitalists will cut the number of hours of labor-power hired unless there is also an increase in demand and thus real production..."
Much less of a distraction to engage in such speculative wool gathering than to crank out numbers that can test various propositions! "This true because total hours of labor-power employed = (output sold)/(output/hours employed), by definition... rising labor productivity would reduce the total amount of hours to be redistributed." This NOT true because it imposes a static short run constraint on a dynamic two-period model. To put it in technical language, you are invoking not only the wages-fund doctrine but the Harriet Martineau/John Weston rendition of the wages-fund doctrine. The "distraction" of Chapman is precisely that his analysis throws a unforgiving light on the pernicious but apparently quite seductive throwback to pre-Marx, vulgar political economy. On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Jim Devine <[email protected]> wrote: > Dipping into academic deconstructions of Chapman's work seems a real > distraction. As Shane Mage points out, the real issue is political. > > In any event, Tom (a.k.a., the Sandwichman) has agreed that no-one on > pen-l has prohibited the discussion of cutting hours of labor, which > was my point. > > in addition, Tom writes: > >> current overwork actually depresses productivity and wages to the extent > >> that total income for given hours may be LESS than it could be if people > >> worked average annual hours more in line with the long term trend that > >> prevailed up to the 1950s or even up to the 1980s. > > Of course, if the productivity per hour of labor-power hired rises, in > situations of low aggregate demand such as the present capitalists > will cut the number of hours of labor-power hired unless there is also > an increase in demand and thus real production. This true because > total hours of labor-power employed = (output sold)/(output/hours > employed), by definition. While it makes sense to cut hours of > individual workers in order to give hours to the unemployed (a form of > unemployment insurance), rising labor productivity would reduce the > total amount of hours to be redistributed. (If the total number of > hours hired falls, that puts more of a downward pressure on wages, by > the way.) We have to be aware of such costs. > > It seems that Chapman assumes that we're at full employment, where the > amount produced increases with the productivity of labor-power (since > the number of hours hired is given). > > BTW, as a seeming effort to prove that Marx's CAPITAL is relevant, the > big thing among management these days is increasing the amount of > effort actually exerted during an hour of labor-power hired -- or > having workers do their jobs during non-paid time. That raises labor > productivity, which with given demand for the product, reduces the > number of paid hours of labor-power hired. > -- > Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own > way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > -- Sandwichman
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
