History and criticism of the labor theory of value in English political economyWhitaker, Albert C. (Albert Conser)
History
History and criticism of the labor theory of value in English political economy
Whitaker, Albert C. (Albert Conser)
Economics -- Great Britain -- History; Labor theory of value -- Great Britain -- History
Crusoe might possess various articles of value which cost him no labor,
or cost him an entirely negligible amount, such as certain scarce fruits;
but the major part of Crusoe’s wealth, let us suppose, is produced, and
is freely reproducible, by his labor. The amount of labor power which
he expends upon his island is variable at his pleasure within wide
limits. If he choose to work only a few hours a day through the year, he
will produce only a certain limited amount of the most useful things.
If he add more hours per day, he will produce more of the old kinds of
goods and also other different articles, luxuries as contrasted with
necessities, but at any rate things of lower utility. Thus as Crusoe
increases the hours of labor power put forth per day, he finds that
there is a decline in the additional utility produced by each successive
increment of labor. On the other hand, he finds that the pain cost or
disutility of labor increases as he toils longer and longer. Crusoe will,
for his average day, work until the increasing disutility of labor comes
to an equality in his judgment with the decreasing utility of the things
being produced. It would not be rational for him to stop at an earlier
point, for then further labor would produce him a means of satisfaction
greater than the “pain” of the labor itself. Nor would he labor beyond
this point so that the pain would exceed the pleasure gain. Thus the
utility produced by, and the disutility of, the final increment of labor
in the working-day counterbalance, or we have the “marginal equivalence
of utility and disutility.”
The most important part of Professor Clark’s teaching is that the
disutility of labor expended in producing goods is the ultimate standard
of their value. To establish this thesis, it is necessary for him to
show that the “effective” disutility of an increment of labor is always
the actual disutility of the final increment, and that the “effective”
utility produced by any increment is the actual utility produced by the
final increment. If Crusoe works ten hours a day, any hour of the day’s
labor will have the same effective disutility as the tenth hour. Thus
if it costs one hour of labor to produce the article A, the pain cost
of A is always _in effect_ the disutility of the final or tenth hour
of labor, no matter in what part of the day the good A happens actually
to be produced. For if Crusoe should decide to go without this article
in order to avoid the hour of labor which it costs, his day would then
consist of nine hours spent upon the rest of his products, and the effect
would be to save himself the disutility of the tenth or last hour.[236]
By shortening the working-day an hour he cannot do otherwise than save
himself from suffering this marginal disutility.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account