Would you like to see where the ms. stands today?
Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University michael at ecst.csuchico.edu Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901 www.michaelperelman.wordpress.com -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 5:15 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [Pen-l] The Irrelevance of Workers In Economic Theory Quoting "Perelman, Michael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Fred, your point is a key thread of the book. > Good, I look forward to your book. > 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 7:51 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [Pen-l] The Irrelevance of Workers In Economic Theory > > > 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 > _______________________________________________ > 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
