[lbo-talk] Re: hours... (was parecon discussion)

Bill Bartlett billbartlett at dodo.com.au
Fri Sep 26 16:36:25 PDT 2003


At 9:56 AM -0700 26/9/03, joanna bujes wrote:
>Bill writes
>
>"But if society has to invest 400 man-hours rearing, socialising and training me to do a task, for every hour I can actually spend doing a task, then the value of the labour on the task must be equivalent to 401 unrefined man-hours."
>
>I know what you mean but first I think people underestimate "unskilled" work and, second, with all work, "experience" is worth as much if not more than education.

I like to think so, since I have only a minimum high school education. In market terms experience sometimes falls short in terms of certification though. The purchasers of labour power like to have quality assurance these days, so the certificate is worth something.

Aside from that minor quibble, you're right. Getting experience still requires a lot of work and informal training hours though. So the same sort of investment is involved in refining labour to actually make it more valuable.


>Also, what is the actual point of comparing skilled to unskilled labor, as in the paragraph above?

The point is to understand why, in spite of appearances, all labour is fundamentally of equal value. Both in terms of use value and exchange value. The value of a person's labour-power can only be increased by adding more labour-power to it. This doesn't just apply in respect to skilled work either, it also applies to mechanised work. One person operating a machine might be able to do the work of ten with their bare hands, but only because a large number of labour hours have already been invested in designing and manufacturing the machine.

Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list