Date: Thu, 14 Mar 96 0:56:46 EST
From: boddhisatva <kbevans-AT-panix.com>
To: marxism-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
Subject: Re: Re: Minimum Wage






		Mr. Mage,


	Your analysis is interesting but your conclusion is plainly wrong. 
You have not considered a multiple tier wage system.  I don't think your
statement that "to attract additional units of standardised labor power
the oligopsonistic employer must raise the wage of its entire labor force" 
is demonstrated at all clearly in you analysis. 


	What you could argue is that in an industry with high turnover, where
workers are paid such a marginal wage that they constantly quit, an employer
must raise the entire prevailing wage to get any increase in reliability from
his workforce.  However, this is only true if the employment of any
individual worker is so uncertain that the workforce must be considered as a
heap rather than individuals.  



	This is true in many low-wage jobs, however, this fact does not stop
an employer from selecting a few employees and raising their salaries to a
level at which they are far more certain to come to work each day.  Add to
that a culture that doles out social respect on a wage hierarchy, and you
have a situation where the workers churn through minimum-wage jobs,
their self-respect diminishing by the day, and those who make the next level
are so glad to be out of the minimum wage cycle that they move off the
wage/standard-unit-labor-power curve,  giving capitalists greater 
marginal benefit.  


	There is usually a ceremony, some "training" or a title to mark 
this departure from minimum wagedom.  The jump from orderly to nurses' 
aid, from regular MacDonald's worker to "assistant manager", from 
dishwasher to prep cook are all examples of situations where people give 
a great rise in reliability of production, for a small rise in wages.  



	The difference between "unskilled" and "semi-skilled" (a 
wonderfully bogus term) is, in my experience, not a question of skill but 
of reliability (and identification with the oppressor culture).  Your 
assistant manager at McDonald's does essentially the exact same work but 
can, by dint of his "position" be relied on to show up, follow 
instructions without quitting, and then do a little something extra.  All 
the above jobs are essentially the same thing.  


	
	In conclusion, your analysis is right on the money as long as 
people stay on the curve.  However, the capitalists won't accept it 
because they believe that they are paying above the curve to begin with.  
Of course their analysis of the market ignores oppression, but so does 
yours.  People at that margin cannot afford (emotionally or physically) 
to act as "rational actors" and thus are victimized by tier wage 
systems.  


	  
	peace






     --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---