[PEN-L:1874] reply to Tom Walker

["Perelman, Michael" <MPERELMAN@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Tom Walker wrote:

 Perhaps someone could explain to me what the following passage means from
the perspective of
 marginal utility:

 "In short the argument that wages can be raised permanently by stinting
labour rest on the assumption  that there is a permanent fixed work-fund,
i.e. a certain amount of work which has to be done, whatever  the price of
labour.

ME:

Withholding of labor will not raise wages.

THE PARAGRAPH CONTINUES
 And for this assumption there is no foundation. On the contrary, the demand
for work comes from the  national dividend; that is, it comes from work. The
less work there is of one kind, the less demand there  is for work of other
kinds; and if labour were scarce, fewer enterprises would be
 undertaken."

ME AGAIN:

This is merely a Keynesian multiplier like argument, that jobs create the
demand for more labor.

TOM ASKS;

 What is the relationship between "labour" and "work" in the above
paragraph?
 Does the term "work" have a consistent referent throughout the paragraph?

ME AGAIN:

The paragraph seems to use work to mean the demand for jobs and labor to
means the sale of "labor
power,"  although the usage is not entirely consistent.