Michael Perelman wrote, >Doug wrote: >> Why then is the U.S. capital/output ratio in a downtrend (I know, I know, >> this is by bourgeois measures) and the employment/population ratio in an >> uptrend? > >1. Labor is cheap compared to capital. High wages will move this ratio >over time. > >2. Computers and other investment have lower durability than fixed >structures. The composition of capital has changed. We interrupt the digression in progress to bring you a special bulletin. John Gulick, Andy Pollack, and Rakesh Bhandari all pondered the relationship between shorter hours of work and productivity. Underlying their questions was an unspoken assumption of a direct proportion -- undoubtedly mediated by the mysterious productivity -- between units of output and hours of work. They say productivity. I say phlogiston. For the benefit of non-chemists, let me use another term -- flat earth. Let's try a couple of exercises: Doug Henwood takes 6,000 hours to write a book with 300 pages that sells 20,000 copies. Doug's next book takes him 9,000 hours to write, has 400 pages but sells only 15,000 copies. By what percentage has Doug's "productivity" fallen (or risen)? Michael Perelman takes 5 hours to prepare a lecture for a class of 200 students. At the same level of productivity, how many hours should it take him to prepare a lecture for a class of 40 students? Both of the questions are absurd. But that doesn't prevent Doug's publisher or Michael's university administration from drawing up a contract that imposes some definition of productivity. In fact, it would be surprising if they didn't try. In one respect, Doug's and Michael's working circumstances aren't as radically different from those of the ordinary 'worker' as romantic socialist realism iconography would imply. Productivity has become largely a managerial afterthought. It is more a way of retroactively matching outlays to output than it is a way of adjusting output. I used to work in a small consulting firm whose principal (a red diaper baby) imbibed the latest management speak like ambrosia. It was "adding value" if you could repackage a stale piece of boiler plate for a client instead of actually doing any research. Because a lot of what gets bought and sold is strictly symbolic anyway, it's hard to argue with that kind of reasoning. The symbolic economy is extremely elastic but it isn't unlimited as, say, a Baudrillard might argue. Ultimately, a whole flock of those counterfeit chickens come home to roost. Challengers implode. Chernobyls meltdown. Albanian pyramids crumble. Bre-X engineers leap from helicopters. >> Why then is the U.S. capital/output ratio in a downtrend (I know, I know, >> this is by bourgeois measures) and the employment/population ratio in an >> uptrend? Back in the 1970s, Juergen Habermas wrote about the possibility that the modern capitalist welfare state could tame economic crises but that it might be at the cost of fuelling other crisis forms: legitimation, motivational and rationality. By elevating the market as a symbol of legitimation, late capitalism seems to have deflected those other crises for a while. But with the routinization of IMF bailouts, LC has now come full circle. Massive state intervention to prevent a market collapse comes with a price, too. Given the immense transformations of capitalism since the late 18th century -- that is, transformations of the *capitalist labour process* -- can anyone seriously argue that units of output are directly proportional to hours of labour in any but the most peripheral and inconsequential niches of production? Talk about the tail wagging the dog. Regards, Tom Walker ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Know Ware Communications Vancouver, B.C., CANADA [EMAIL PROTECTED] (604) 688-8296 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The TimeWork Web: http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/
