Michael, my point was not just that workers work harder in the US than
in Germany, but that mainstream economic theory completely excludes any
consideration of the intensity of labor, as in your description:
"the exclusion of work, workers and working conditions from economic theory."
Fred
Quoting "Perelman, Michael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
You mean like this?
An American student of working class life recalled similar differences
between working conditions in Germany and the United States:
##When I was in Germany, Professor Roscher of Leipsic (sic), told me
of German workmen who, after living in America, returned to Germany,
preferring the long hours and low wages there rather than stand the
strain at which they were required to work in America. When in Chicago,
I found that some American workmen sympathized with this view. At the
carpenters' union headquarters, when I spoke warmly of the union victory
in securing the eight hours' day, I was surprised to have one of the
carpenters remark, "yes; but if we won seven hours, half of us would be
dead." [Spahr 1900, p. 177]
Yes, I have that. I know that my short description does not give an
adequate picture of the breadth of what I am doing.
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Chico, CA 95929
530-898-5321
fax 530-898-5901
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2008 7:00 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Pen-l] The Irrelevance of Workers In Economic Theory
Hi Michael,
Another important aspect of this question is the "intensity of labor" -
i.e. how hard workers work. This is an important variable in Marx's
labor theory of value, because it is one determinant of the quantity of
value produced. This enables Marx's theory to explain why there is a
pervasive conflict over the intensity of labor in capitalist
enterprises.
In mainstream theory, quite to the contrary, the intensity of labor is
not a variable at all. Therefore, mainstream theory is unable to
explain why there is this pervasive conflict.
Fred
Quoting Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Many of you know that I am finishing up a book
manuscript regarding the exclusion of work, workers
and working conditions from economic theory. This
part jumps into the middle of a section. The meat of
the post is really in the third and fourth paragraphs,
where I do a JSTOR survey of the almost total
exclusion from economics. Fans of Martin Feldstein
may appreciate his contribution.
In short, the exclusion of work, workers, and working
conditions was not simply an accidental oversight.
First, it served an important purpose in defending the
capitalism from the accusation of exploitation.
Second, any analysis based on labor would call out for
both impossible quantification and more difficult
mathematics. Utility, however, seemed to permit
economists to avoid the need for quantification, while
seeming to simplify mathematical complexities.
Finally, utility seemed to be capable of fitting in
with the type of models that economists were using in
their quest to emulate physics with its mathematics of
maximization.
As Phil Mirowski noted, "Production, as conventionally
understood, does not "fit" in neoclassical value
theory" (Mirowski 1989, p. 284). In short, ideology,
mathematical convenience, and scientific ambitions all
combined to sweep work, workers, and working
conditions under the rug.
The radical shift from labor to extreme subjectivity
in which consumer's unmeasurable preferences became
the center of economic analysis sealed labor's
marginalization in the theoretical world of economic
theory. Other fields, such as sociology, industrial
relations, or psychology seriously explore questions
of work, workers or working conditions, but economics
does not.
An August 8, 2008 search of 73 economics journals
collected electronically in the JSTOR database
revealed how marginal work, workers, and working
conditions has become in economic literature. Of the
articles published since January 2004, the term
"working conditions" appeared in only 12, not counting
four more substantial articles in the Review of
African Political Economy, a journal rarely cited by
mainstream economists. Of the remaining articles,
three concerned the problem of retention of teachers.
Another had a footnote that observed that people can
learn about working conditions from websites. One
article noted that faculty members in colleges and
universities join unions to improve working
conditions. A book review considered whether
globalization could improve working conditions. Two
articles mentioned legislation that took working
conditions into account. One article disputed that
child labor abroad experienced hideous working
conditions. Another cited a mid-nineteenth century
British economist who said that factory working
conditions were good.
My favorite entry was from Martin Feldstein, whose
contempt for spiteful egalitarian was discussed
earlier. This article was one of his many attacks on
Social Security that proposed that good working
conditions should be treated as taxable income
(Feldstein 2005, p. 36). None of the articles offered
any evidence of serious engagement with work, workers,
or working conditions. In contrast, a search for
sociologists' articles with the term "working
conditions" that covered ten fewer journals, returned
107 articles.
At the same time as questions of labor were
disappearing, economics began to elevate the status of
investors' financial claims, insisting that owners of
this form of property had rights equal to those of
owners of real goods, such as land or factories. Even
something as ephemeral as "good will" became
recognized as property.
-- Michael Perelman
Economics Department California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
michaelperelman.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
