Louis Proyect <[email protected]> wrote: > http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/02/17/foxconn-raises-pay-karl-marx-explains-why/ > <
This is bad. It's really just using Marx's name to use supply & demand. The author doesn't realize that increased labor productivity can and often does _reduce_ the demand for labor-power (as Marx knew), freeing up labor for other capitalists to exploit. For any given amount demanded for the products that Foxconn workers make, rising labor productivity reduces Foxconn's employment of workers. In fact, that may be the whole point: the company may be mechanizing in order to reduce employment and control labor. An actual increase in employment might occur, however, if there's a large surge in demand for Foxconn's product or if productivity increases lead to significant falls in Foxconn's prices. I don't see the latter happening. The author seems to be making a major mistake that my students regularly make, i.e., confusing "production" (output) with "productivity" (output per worker). The good news is that it seems that it's okay to cite Marx in public now. -- Jim Devine / "An atheist is a man who has no invisible means of support." -- John Buchan _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
