>> a) the second one is _derived_ using ultra-simple math from the first >> (which is true by definition). > > That's cute. The math is "ultra simple."
It's calculus. > I'll defer to Jim's knowledge of his own math and just point out that there > is a lot of definitional wiggle room in the terms, chief among them being > why is the quantity in one equation "hours" and in another "employment"? The equation is true whether employment of labor-power is measured in hours or days or years. Consistency of units used is all that's required. > What is the relationship in the two equations between hours per employee and > effort per hour? I was taking it for granted that (as Tom suggested originally) falling hours of labor-power hired per employee (such as reducing the length of the working day) raises effort per hour of labor-power hired (and/or the effectiveness of that effort) and thus raised "labor productivity" (output per hour of labor-power hired, what really should be called "labor-power productivity"). That was not in dispute. If this is true, then with the amount of output that can be sold being constant (or grows too slowly), then the number of hours of labor-power that capitalists hire falls. An example: suppose that the typical capitalist hires 80 hours of labor-power during a day (8 workers at 10 hours each), which leads to the production of 800 tons of steel. This means that "labor productivity" (output of steel per hour of labor-power hired) equals 10 tons per hour during that day. Then, hours per worker is reduced from 10 per day to 8 hours per day. Assuming that all output can be sold, keeping the number of hours of labor-power hired constant allows the increase in the number of workers hired to rise from 8 workers to 10 workers each day, sharing the burden of unemployment more widely (a good idea and a form of unemployment insurance, as I noted). Suppose next that the cut in hours per worker allows an increase in labor productivity from 10 tons per hour to 11 tons per hour during a day (a large jump, but it makes the math easier). Still assuming that all output can be sold, this raises output to 880 tons of steel during a day, an increase of 80 tons. (we're ignoring the bit about workers being another day older and deeper in debt.) But if the demand for steel stays constant (or increases by less than 80 tons per day), then the number of hours of labor-power employed will be cut. (Otherwise there is over-production of steel, something no capitalist wants.) This cut in hours of labor-power hired per worker in turn might raise output per hour of labor-power hired once again, which makes things worse (by cutting the number of hours of labor-power hired) if demand for the product continues to stay the same or grow too slowly. (It's possible that the government could buy up the extra steel, but that's doesn't address the original question.) > Nothing that you have presented so far, Jim, indicates that the two > equations, which you attribute to Harrod, address those definitional > questions. I didn't "attribute" this equation to Harrod, which sounds like he invented it; instead I sad he used it. Since it's true by definition, it really wasn't invented by anyone. I apologize to everyone on pen-l for mentioning Harrod, since his work is irrelevant to the question at hand. > Now it may be that Harrod addressed those questions and you are > assuming that anyone with half a brain would know that. But I suspect not. I really don't care if Harrod addressed those questions or not. He's irrelevant to the question. > I suspect that Harrod's equations (if that's indeed what they are) are true by > definition because they have excluded the issue of variability of hours and > in that case the history of economic thought is totally relevant here. In > fact, it's more relevant that the identity or otherwise of the two > equations. the variability of hours is irrelevant to the application of the identity: rising (Q/L) with constant Q has to be associated with falling E, where Q is output and E is employment. If E is hours of labor-power hired, then Q/L is output produced per hour of labor-power hired, and Q is output (however measured). .... > Now you're telling me all that doesn't matter in this case because it's an > identity that's true by definition. That is only plausible if Harrod > explicitly addressed the duration/intensity dilemma that Chapman introduced > (and which Marx emphasized in Capital). the duration/intensity dilemma, if I understand it correctly, refers to the impact of hours of labor-power hired per individual worker on effort per hour of labor-power hired. I never questioned that. My original point was that we have to avoid the Say's Law assumption, which blithely asserts that the benefits of increased effort will be sold on the market. > Did Harrod > directly address the duration/intensity issue or did he not. If he did > please present the appropriate citation. If he didn't then all your > insistence about true by definition tautologies is irrelevant bluster. Show > me the money. see above. But again, Harrod is irrelevant to the whole question, even though he used the equation in question. -- 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
