| This question <446|456> overall <451|453> Oak: <450|547>. graded A |
| Question 524: According to Marx, the only way to increase profits is to shorten the portion of the day during which the workers produce an equivalent of their wage, and to extend that portion of the day when they create unreimbursed new value for the capitalist. Are the capitalists aware of it that all their cost cutting measures, if successful, go at the expense of their workers? |
| [452] Oak: Don't forget the constraints This is in response to [423] [434] [444] and [446] |
| Thank-you Che, Peaches, Garfield, and August for answering this question first. I wouldn't normally answer a question that has already had so much discussion, but it was my favorite question in this section. I'm going to respond to your submissions one by one. Che, you submitted first, so I'm responding to you first. |
| I understood what you meant by, “the only way to increase profit is to shorten the portion of the day during which the workers produce an equivalent of their wage, and to extend that portion of the day when they create unreimbursed new value for the capitalist.” The statement itself is mostly accurate (I would have used “one way to increase profit...”), but I'm going to point to the a -- b -- c example given by Marx just to clarify. |
| Marx gives the example of the 12 hour workday. We can't change it to longer or shorter. This is perhaps due to legislation, or due to the physical limitations of the workers, it doesn't matter for our purposes. The 12 hours is the workday continuum of a -- c. Point b, somewhere in-between, is the point where the worker has earned her wages for the day, this might be at any point between the 1 to 12 hours. Let's say it's at the 10 hour mark. One way for the capitalists to increase profit is to move the point where the worker has earned her wages for the day more towards a. This makes a -- b shorter, thus making the portion where the capitalists reap the surplus labor from b -- c longer. (Remember a -- c cannot be lengthened or shortened.) |
| Che makes the argument that capitalists are aware that the cost cutting is at the expense of the workers. The example of this is salary. The idea is that the worker is paid the same each week no matter how many hours of overtime is worked. The problem with this example is that we are working with the constraint of a fixed workday. Overtime is not an option. Although I would agree with Che that this is done on purpose with full knowledge of the capitalist. She knows that she is going to get more hours of labor with the same pay just by increasing the workload since the worker is locked into a salary and must perform to keep the job. |
| Peaches, you're next. Peaches made the attempt to bring in the a -- b -- c concept, but got it backwards. She (I'm assuming you are a she with this pseudonym, you may correct me if I am wrong), wants the capitalist to shorten b -- c to increase the capitalists profits. The b -- c part of the workday is the portion of time that the capitalist is getting free labor, the surplus labor. Getting free labor increases the capitalists profits. The more free labor, the more profits. In order to increase profits, the capitalist would need to shorten the a -- b part of the workday, or the portion of the day required for the worker to earn her daily wage. As explained above, by shortening the first part of the workday, the second par of the workday is lengthened by default. |
| I'm going to assume the Peaches statement is a typo because she later goes on to say that by “increasing the amount of time spent producing surplus value, it is more likely that the time producing necessary work will be shortened.” So it seems she understands that the capitalist wants more surplus labor and less necessary labor. Of course this statement is backwards. The capitalist would have to shorten the necessary labor time, the a -- b portion of the workday. That would result in a longer surplus labor, b -- c portion of the workday. |
| Peaches then states that if the capitalist cannot shorten the time required for necessary labor, then she would have to lengthen the workday (earlier in the morning for some reason). But this is not working within our constraints of our set work day. Peaches concludes that the only way for the capitalist to make a profit is to exploit the worker. This may be true, but it doesn't answer the question. She does state that the capitalist is using the shorting of the a -- b [sic] portion of the workday is a deliberate tactic of the capitalist to get more profit. |
| Garfield puts his/her thesis in the subject line with “Oh, They Know”. While this answers the question, lets see how s/he supports it. S/he states that the capitalist must know when they make “pay cuts, low wages, lay-off's, cuts to benefits such as health insurance.” Let's keep in mind that pay cuts (with a cut in benefits as a form of pay cut) is out of the realm of possible behavior by the capitalist. The Annotations states on page 398 that pay cuts are possible, but that the laws of competition will rule this out. Low wages may fall under the pay cut category depending on how Garfield defines low wages. If low wages is under the amount needed for reproduction of the workforce, then it would be too low to sustain and would fall under the same category as pay cuts. If low wages is under the amount the worker produces in a day, it wouldn't. In fact, that is what the capitalist is likely to pay. |
| Garfield goes on to give a personal example of his coworker being laid off, and s/he having to take up 2 work loads. This is a great example of the shorting of the needed labor time to increase the surplus labor time. Garfield must “speed up” his/her work to fit it all within the set workday. I am in a similar position at my job. People have been laid off, or quit and haven't been replaced, and my quotas have been increase to cover the same amount of work. Who cares that I'm going to end up with carpel tunnel syndrome because of the increased typing speed I'm forced to work at? Not the capitalist, it's likely I'll be at another job when I have to file for disability. |
| Garfield takes the position that an investment in new technology to make the workers more productive and not increasing the wages for the increased output is not exploiting the worker. I think Marx would argue the complete opposite. If the workers can produce more whether due to new methods, like the assembly line, or due to new technology such as air powered tools instead of manual ones; then the worker should be paid more. If the worker is paid under his production, then the capitalist is reaping the surplus amount. If the technology increases the rate of his production, and the wages are not adjusted, then the capitalist has shortened the a -- b. This will increase the b -- c part of the workday, thus increasing the capitalist profits. I don't understand Garfield's argument that the cost of the new technology comes out of the workers pockets. I cannot respond to that one. |
| Garfield makes the assumption that if capitalist don't know the cost cutting measures hurt the worker, then it must be because they refuse to see it. I'll have my conclusion on this after I critique August. |
| Actually, August doesn't say much new. S/he does comment on the 3 earlier submission and expresses opinions that I cannot refute. August also argues that if a capitalist doesn't know he is hurting the workers, it's because he refuses to see it. |
| Now, for my opinion. I would argue that a capitalist doesn't have the same thought processes as Marx and probably doesn't see any of the above mentioned measures as exploitation or as hurting the member. If the capitalist invests in new technology, then he feels that the portion of the output produced by the worker is still the same and deserves the same wage. The increase in production is due to the investment the CAPITALIST made, not the worker. The increase in profits is a fair return to the capitalist. If the capitalist creates a new method of production, for example the assembly line, then the worker is still working the same effort. The production is easier because the worker has to remember and be skilled at fewer activities and can do them better. It is the same effort to produce more. Thus the capitalist feels he should not increase wages because the effort is the same. Whether this is part of the capitalist denial my academic peers have mentioned or simply a different way of looking at things would be debatable. I would say it is simply another way of looking at business. That may not be a popular way of looking at things in a Marxism class, but there you are. |
| Hans: Both your feedback to the others and your own answer are absolutely excellent! |
|
|
|||||