Question 1 What did Marx mean with his formu - University of Utah

U of Utah Econ 5080 2005fa 75
Hans: You are putting your finger on an interesting feature of Marx’s theory. Strictly speaking the equalization
of all commodities on the market would only be justified if all labor-powers were equal. In reality they are not
entirely equal, they are, say, only 95% equal. This is a good enough fit between surface and underlying production
conditions for markets to function.
Next Message by DarkKnight is [777].
Question 117 is 61 in 1995WI, 70 in 1995ut, 74 in 1996sp, 73 in 1996ut, 81 in 1998WI, 88
in 1999SP, 93 in 2000fa, and 93 in 2001fa:
Question 117 Does skilled labor (i.e., labor for which schooling and training is necessary,
for instance the labor of an engineer) produce more value per hour than unskilled labor (like
the labor of a janitor)? Explain!
[1573] Hans: New Homework Assignments. This is one of the homework questions assigned
over the Thanksgiving weekend and the Monday after. Answers are accepted starting
right now until Tuesday morning, November 29, at 3 am.
This particular question has been discussed a lot in the archives. See for instance my
[2001fa:41] and [1999SP:47]. These two answers look contradictory but they can be reconciled.
Here I am repeating the list of all the homework questions assigned until Tuesday morning
3 am:
(81), (117), (129), (185), 375, 377, 590, 601
Those in parentheses are not in the Annotations, but you can see their text in the emails I
am sending out today.
Next Message by Hans is [1575].
[1600] Rudy: graded A More value per hour. Context is an important factor in answering
this question. The question does not ask if the commodity the labor produces has more
value, neither does it ask which is more valuable to society. The question is whether or not
skilled labor produces more value per hour than unskilled labor. The problem is, how do we
compare labor-powers? It seems the context Marx uses as a solution is that the difference
cannot be qualitative, but only quantitative (as to how much value is produced per hour, even
though labor-powers cannot be compared quantitatively).
Considering this context, skilled workers produce more value per hour quantitatively; not
because more labor is going into each hour per individual worker, but because the labor used
to train the worker is added in as well. The annotations use the example of the training
needed for a heart surgeon. Hans’s [2001fa:41] is an explanation of how a heart surgeon
produces more value per hour than, in this case, a group of fast-food workers. He states,
“The labor of a surgeon creates more value per hour only because he had to spend so much
time studying medicine and being trained as a doctor.” The annotations explain that the
value per hour ratio would become greater as one adds in the labor by teachers and the labor
needed to produce training materials and equipment.
In these terms Marx explains that “...a smaller amount of complicated labor is equal to
a bigger amount of simple labor.” Therefore as the skilled labor is reduced to multiples of
76 2005fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
unskilled simple labor, the result is a quantitative greater amount of value per hour, though
qualitatively, labor-power is still generally equal.
Hans: The market equates all commodities to money, i.e., makes them quantitatively comparable and therefore
qualitatively equal. Marx is looking for an underlying element in production which is also quantitatively comparable
and qualitatively equal. Labor-power almost fits the bill: most labors in society can be performed by almost
any worker (with the proper training). And even those labor-powers which are qualitatively different (the labor of
an great artist and scientist) will somehow be reduced to some quantitative multiple of simple labor.
Next Message by Rudy is [1799].
[1603] PAE: I definitely think that more skilled labor positions produce more value per
hour than positions, which are less skilled and I think the education that goes into obtaining
these positions has a lot to do with it. Even though I believe all labor no matter how skilled
or unskilled is vital to any business and society who hopes to succeed there is a difference
in value being produced.
When we look at engineers, doctors, teachers, and many others, the time that is put in, in
order for them to obtain those jobs, helps them produce more value hourly. Almost anyone
given enough time could figure out how to do a doctor’s job but the fact that a doctor has
gone to school makes him/her so much more efficient at doing that job. Therefore they are
able to be more efficient and get more done per hour than a normal person would be able
to do. Also I believe without the high skilled labor positions the lower/unskilled positions
would not be available. A hospital could survive without a janitor or maintenance worker
but could not survive without doctors. To me this signifies the higher value per hour, which
skilled positions create.
Now if you look at unskilled positions the same could probably not be said. I think many
of us could take over the position of a janitor and be able to come close if not match the work
per hour they were doing. In addition while it is evident we need those positions a company
can live without them in the short run and in some cases maybe the long run.
Hans: You are looking too much at the whole and its interconnections. The value created by a laborer is something
very individualistic. Individuals are very versatile. They can produce many different things, and they can also
produce in different ways: either something which does not need special training, or something for which many
years of schooling is needed. How they allocate their time can be adjusted, but one thing is fixed, namely, the
number of workers available in the society. This is why the total labor time, including schooling, matters for the
value of the output.
Message [1603] referenced by [1622]. Next Message by PAE is [1664].
[1605] Zone: graded A When looking at the difference between skilled and unskilled
laborers in the marketplace, they produce the same amount of value per hour but are not
compensated the same financially. When looking at the skilled laborer, the worker has invested
time and training to perform the job. The unskilled worker is able to do his job with
no training. Therefore, the skilled laborer has more abstract-labor in each hour of work performed.
The time the skilled worker invests in training is not considered the value here. If
you look at the amount of value produced over the lifetime of each worker they should equal
out because the skilled laborer was investing the time it took to learn the skill, while the
unskilled laborer was creating value. Per hour of work, each individual ends up creating the
same amount of labor even though they have different skill levels over the lifetime of working.
The reason one might think that the skilled laborer creates more value is the difference
of wages they are paid. The reasons for this arise because of the way the Capitalist society