RE: [Pen-l] The Irrelevance of Workers In Economic Theory

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

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: pen-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:pen-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
fmoseley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 5:15 AM
To: pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [Pen-l] The Irrelevance of Workers In Economic Theory

Quoting "Perelman, Michael" <MPerelman@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:

> 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: pen-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:pen-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> fmoseley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2008 7:51 PM
> To: pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 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" <MPerelman@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
>> 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: pen-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:pen-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
>> fmoseley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2008 7:00 PM
>> To: pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> 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 <michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>
>>> 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
>>> pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> pen-l mailing list
>> pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
>> _______________________________________________
>> pen-l mailing list
>> pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
>>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
>
> _______________________________________________
> pen-l mailing list
> pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
> _______________________________________________
> pen-l mailing list
> pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
>



----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l