(OPE-L) Re: indirect labor, the real wage, and the production of surplus value

[gerald_a_levy <gerald_a_levy@xxxxxxx>]

Ajit wrote:

> This proposition makes no sense to me. Why should
> money wages fall with the rise in productivity and
> real wages being fixed?

By assumption and _only_ by assumption -- given the
ceteris paribus conditions posited by Mike L.  I.e. _if_
productivity increases result in lower prices for means
of consumption then a _given_ real wage requires that
workers receive less money wages, ceteris paribus.

> I think one can point out not
> one but several cases, including the USA in the last
> ten to twenty years, where real wages have remained
> constant or even declined but money wages almost
> invariably have been on the rise.

Yes, I agree.

> I think your
> proposition sounds more absurd that what you are
> declaring to be absurd.

You are confusing a theoretical condition  whose logic
I am attempting  to explain  with my position.  The only
point where my position entered into this was my
assertion that the 'absurdity' (of declining money wages
under the condition of increasing productivity and a fixed
wage) means  that we need to drop the assumption of a
fixed real wage in a dynamic analysis.

To explain _why_ real wages have in practice remained stagnant
yet money wages increase (the empirical and historical issue you
raise above) requires that we drop the ceteris paribus
assumption and consider the major variables that have brought
about this consequence.  One might want to include variables
that, for example, can lead to inflation.

In solidarity, Jerry