Jon: FWIW, I think Becker's story leaves crucial dots unconnected. I see why you're asking about the connection between OCC variations and the wage-VLP disproportionalities Becker speaks of, but Becker does not show--and it doesn't follow--that the wage disparities highlighted in the passage you cite below have anything to do with the sort of disparities he's talking about. Probably not, and Becker does not in fact engage even the then-contemporary *Marxian* analysis of such disparities (labor market segmentation, e.g.), let alone relevant mainstream treatments (of which he seems completely unaware). In other words, I suspect that Becker's analysis isn't going to get you anywhere re your specific concerns.
Start with the passage from Becker that prompts your question about the role of OCC variations: "In the production of the various divisions of social labor, we are well aware that different ratios of C to V are utilized. As a rule, the value composition of the productive capitals varies directly with the level of training and skill of the laborer being produced" (p. 173). Fine, but as you suggested in an earlier e-mail, these OCC variations don't translate into wage-VLP disproportionality unless there is a positive rate of profit for the production processes generating these skills (as, e.g., when commercial firms offer training courses). And note further that such wage-VLP disproportionalities are still consistent with a "cost of producing labor power" theory of wage determination. Even though wages and VLPs aren't proportional for different levels of social labor, it can still be the case that wages just cover the market cost of producing given types of labor power, including costs of skill acquisition. Second, though, Becker seems to misrepresent the mainstream theory of (competitive) wage determination when he says: "In the view of conventional economics the differential wages received by social labor in its different grades reflect above all the differential costs of producing these grades of labor; some of them being more and some less expensive, the structure of wages will disperse itself accordingly..." (p. 172). Unless "conventional" means "classical" (doubtful, since the passage goes on to speak of the "neoclassical" theory of wages"), this statement is false: mainstream economics doesn't have a "cost of production" theory of (competitive) wage determination; as mentioned earlier, it has a "compensating wage differential" theory augmented by human capital theory, which introduces psychic considerations (workers' aversion to job risks, e.g.) on the supply side. In sum: mainstream economics doesn't feature a "cost of production" theory of competitive wage determination, but even if it did, wage-VLP disparities do not contradict that theory. Now on to the passage you cite:
"By paying the technically and administratively advance grades of labor at rates in excess of exchange value, the market mechanisms of capitalism stimulate the production of these grades of labor by making them more attractive to the young, on the one hand" on the other, by pulling surplus value out of labor of less expensive grades and transferring it to advanced sectors for overpayment, hence the overproduction of skilled labor, the market cruelly represses the production of labor power of less skilled and educated workers." I might be just imagining, but I'm not sure if Becker is talking about the OCC of firms putting pressure on wages, or the internal OCC of labor power directly determining the price-cost of labor power.
First, if Becker *were* talking about OCC-driven wage/VLP disparities, then his comment here is a non sequitur, since, per the previous discussion, these disparities would not imply the payment of "surplus" wages to "technically and administratively advanced grades of labor" causing the distortions he speaks of here. Second, again per the previous discussion, this conclusion would not even follow (in mainstream theory) from the existence of disproportionalities between wages and costs of producing labor power, given the possibility of (competitively determined) compensating wage differentials. To put this point another way, to make the claim he's making here, Becker would need at minimum to criticize the mainstream theory of compensating wage differentials, but it's not even clear he's aware that this theory exists. Second, in light of the above, Becker must presumably be talking about some competitive *imperfections* in capitalist wage determination (due, say, to problems of maintaining labor discipline under imperfect information (the efficiency wage theory, e.g., or differential bargaining power across levels of social labor). But he doesn't really discuss what these imperfections might be, and in any case they have no particular connection to variations in the OCC of skill production. For what it's worth-- Gil
well ... you may read the section for yourself and I'd be delighted to see what you make of it. Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: What pages of Becker is the discussion on? ........ There can be unequal exchange even in a system of simple commodity production. If artisan Adam is able to sell his product for a higher price than (is proportional to) its value, he can gain from artisan Eve, who can't. This might happen due to Adam having a monopoly. .......... I think it was Hilferding who saw the value-creating capability of an individual worker as being a result of investment in training (I almost said "human capital"). Then an individual might be seen as having an internal OCC. But I don't see how there could be an equalization of the rate of profit between workers. Luggage? GPS? Comic books? Check out fitting <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48249/*http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=graduation+gifts&cs=bz>gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search.
