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
Before attending directly to these questions, it is best to consider
whether it is possible to compare the subjective costs of commodities
produced by different persons or groups of persons. A ton of coal may
exchange for six bushels of wheat. The subjective cost of the coal
consists chiefly in the labor of certain miners; that of the wheat in
the labor of certain farmers. To assert that the subjective costs of
production of these commodities either are or are not in proportion to
their respective exchange values, implies that we are able to compare
these costs as quantities. To assert proportionality requires that we be
able to say that the disutility experienced by the miners in producing
a ton of coal is equal to that experienced by the farmers in producing
six bushels of wheat. To assert disproportionality, we must be able to
state that these disutilities are unequal. If these disutilities are
quite incommensurable, we can assert nothing regarding the relation of
these costs to the corresponding exchange values.[249] Men as scholars
are accustomed to maintain that the pleasures or pains of different minds
cannot be compared as quantities, while in every-day life the same men
are equally accustomed to state that John _enjoys_ music _more_ than
Paul, or that Primus _suffers more_ or works _harder_ than Secundus.
May or may not we affirm that the stoker works harder, or in our own
jargon, suffers more disutility, than the dining-room steward? In the
hope of settling part of the issues raised in these questions, let us
consider the meaning of one of Adam Smith’s statements regarding wages
in different employments. I refer to the doctrine that wages tend to be
higher than the average in employments where there is a higher degree of
disutility. This tendency is operative only under perfect competition,
and the existence of numerous non-competing groups occasions a result
much changed from that to be expected from this tendency, which is
sometimes described in the “evil paradox” that the harder the work, the
lower the wages. The question which concerns us here is, how much does
either of the above statements imply with respect to the possibility of
comparing the pains or pleasures of different persons. It seems to the
writer that neither necessitates a direct quantitative comparison of the
subjective experiences of different persons. I may, perhaps, say that
the persons in occupation A are suffering more disutility and receiving
higher wages than those in employment B, but all I can be supposed
really to know is that if I were in occupation A, I would suffer more
discomfort than if I were in occupation B. If I am a person of “average”
(_i. e._, typical) constitution, I may infer legitimately that this
is true also of any average person. While making no affirmation that
John suffers more disutility than Paul, either when these persons are
in the same or in different employments;[250] we may be able to state
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