It is the higher demand for the labour-power of carpenters that brings about a rise in their wages, a phenomena also seen following lockdowns, when the demand for labour-power, in certain sectors, where the consumer demand had surged, caused a rise in wages. But, demand for that labour-power is not the only factor in that determination. The other factor is supply. As with any other commodity, the value of the particular type of labour-power is determined by its cost of production. For some types of labour-power that cost will be higher, and this determines the supply in the long-term.
“In a society of private producers, private individuals or their families defray the costs of teaching the trained worker; hence the higher price paid for trained labour-power accrues first of all to private individuals: the clever slave is sold for a higher price, and the clever wage-earner is paid higher wages.” (p 257-8)
Of course, for some complex labour, the high value placed on its product, whilst creating a high demand for that type of labour, does not bring forth a corresponding supply of that labour-power. If we take the example used by Engels, of two labourers, we could extend it to the labour of Chippendale (furniture maker not male stripper, though the argument works in both cases), as against that of the furniture maker Joe Bloggs, the value of their labour-power, itself, is the same, but the value of the product of their labour is completely different.
In other words, many may be encouraged to train to be furniture makers (or male strippers), but that does not mean that they will succeed in achieving the same success as a Chippendale, in the value that the market places on the product of their labour. Indeed, there may be no amount of education and training capable of achieving that. Although Harrison Ford had some training as an actor, for twenty years it did not lead to him obtaining high wages, so much so, that, to support his family, he became a professional carpenter. The value of his labour-power did not change, when he became a film star, but the value of the product of his labour was raised astronomically, and only then, did his earnings rise substantially, though undoubtedly, not in proportion to the rise in the value of the product of his labour. It was not the value of his labour-power that determined the complex nature of his labour, but the latter that enabled him to obtain very high wages, whilst his employers made even bigger profits from it.
“In a socialistically organised society, these costs are defrayed by society, and the fruits the greater values produced by compound labour, therefore belong to it. The worker himself has no extra claim. Which, incidentally also yields the moral that the popular demand of the workers for “the full proceeds of labour” often has its snags.” (p 258)
No comments:
Post a Comment