Michael Yates wrote: > "Let us imagine, as Schutz does, a man making a labor market decision. Assume > that he has complete knowledge of the wages and benefits associated with > every occupation he is considering entering. He also knows what it will cost > him in terms of schooling and training to be eligible for employment in each > occupation, as well as the income he will have to forego by not working while > he is getting the necessary schooling and training. Any particular > disamenities of an occupation, such as physical danger, are also costs of > entering it. Given these considerations, what will he do? He will assess the > costs and benefits of each occupation and choose that for which the > difference between the two is the largest. Implicit in this scenario is a > wage for each occupation that at least covers the cost of entering it. > Competition in the marketplace will, in fact, make the wage just equal to the > entry cost. An occupation with a wage higher than the entry cost will attract > new applicants; t! his will put downward pressure on the wage and upward pressure on the costs (as more people demand schooling and training); and eventually, the above average wage-cost difference will disappear.
The hidden premise is that the worker here is free -- from wealth other than her individual labor power. Even with markets, if the worker could claim the surplus product currently appropriated as surplus value and got it distributed in the form of -- say -- a hefty safety net, then the entry opportunity cost of any occupation would be much higher. Also, with a substantial guaranteed "social wage," the income variance among workers would look small by comparison. Even from the mildest Ricardian perspective, insofar as large claims over surplus value come from the ownership of natural resources (broadly viewed), the legitimacy of surplus product as surplus value is in question. Under the same theory (but different assumptions on who is entitled to the income claimed on the basis of controlling access to the means of production), the workers would fetch higher incomes (and, again, other things equal, they'd be less dispersed). This shows that the true question is ownership over the surplus product, which is to say, ownership over society's productive wealth. Class struggle! _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
