| This question <23|138-8> overall <127-3|128> Senco: <127-3|145>. |
| Question 68: Did Marx introduce additional assumptions in order to resolve the paradox of the lazy worker, or does his solution follow from assumptions made or results derived earlier? |
| [127-4] Senco: Although it is true that the value of a commodity depends on labor content, it does not mean a slow or lazy worker creates more value by taking more time to produce it. |
| This paradox of the lazy worker was resolved previously by Marx when he discussed value and introduced the concept of socially necessary labor time. |
| Socially necessary labor time is “the labor time a normal worker needs under normal conditions to produce something” (Ehrbar lecture notes 2-18-99). |
| This resolves the paradox because the time frame, or amount of abstract labor that is socially necessary is what determines the magnitude of value that the commodity inherits, not the time or amount of labor put forth by the lazy worker. Furthermore the commodity sells for the same price as another produced with less labor time, the extra labor produces no value. |
| Hans reminds us in [120] that the magnitude of value requires socially necessary labor time, not actual labor time. |
| Keeping these things in mind it is clear that the “Lazy worker produces less value per hour than a normal worker” (Hans [120]). Once again resolving the paradox of the lazy worker. |
|
|
|||||