
rolled over the nation like a tide.
Their plants spotting the USA seem to
be our future: we have seen them, and
they certainly work.
If labor and management are busy
fighting each other instead of work-
ing together to produce goods, then
they will make fewer and poorer goods
than those who spend their time bett-
er. This is a bad deal for the con-
sumer, and I expect the confronta-
tional factions in the UAW to con-
tinue to lose ground as the example
of the productivity and profitability
of cooperation continues.
#7 (history) Sat, Sep 23, 1989
(18:45): Re #2: But adversarial rela-
tions are the description of exploi-
tation, not of the attitudes of man-
agers and workers. The economics of
factories dictate that there are
adversarial relations, regardless of
how covered up the public relations
department tries to gloss over the
reality....
#8 (russ) Mon, Sep 25, 1989 (11:33):
Re #2:.... Factories produce a prod-
uct, which the auto companies (and
most other enterprises) sell for more
than the cost of materials and en-
ergy. The excess is available for
wages, salaries and expansion. These
are the economics of the factory; are
you implying that something else is
implicit in this, such as disagree-
ments over how the excess is divided?
I know counterexamples exist to in-
validate most blanket claims....
#9 (history) Wed, Oct 4, 1989
(22:43): ...Yes I am implying that
there is a disagreement - over sev-
eral aspects of your model. First,
where does the excess come from? You
seem to say from the sale of the
product.
I would say that it comes from the
labor power of the worker. The com-
pany buys a worker's labor power.
They buy the worker's ability to
work. They pay him just enough to
survive so he can work. During the
time a worker works, the products he
produces belong to the employer. The
employer buys, for example, the abil-
ity of a worker to work for a day.
For example in 4 hours of the work-
er's workday he produces enough to
pay his wages. The additional 6 hours
(say he works a 10 hour day) belong
to the company gratis. That's where
their wealth (profit) comes from.
It's like the serf who had to work
several days for free on his Lord's
land. Here the worker works gratis
for part of his workday, but the
economics is more hidden.
Second: I disagree that "the ex-
cess is available for wages, salaries
and expansion." That implies that the
more excess, the more expansion. The
opposite is the case. Companies will
make every effort to keep from in-
vesting in new machinery, updating
processes of production, etc. They
will make every effort to lower the
wages and expand the hours of work-
ers.
If workers' wages drop and hours
expand, it is no longer profitable
for a company to put in new machin-
ery. Only high wages and shorter
hours lead to expansion. Thus the
society gains by supporting higher
wages and shorter hours for workers,
not in supporting companies efforts
to gain at workers' expense....
#12 (russ) Mon, Oct 9, 1989 (09:23):
Re #9: What about robot factories
(which do exist)? Whose "labor"
makes those products?
What about the costs of the enter-
prise itself? Buildings must be paid
for and repaired, heated, lit, and
replaced periodically. Machinery must
be purchased and maintained. And
*all* of this must happen before a
worker can work a single hour. How
much should the people who make this
possible be paid (note: they are
capitalists)? Remember that they put
forth their effort up front, and get
a return later if they get one at
all.
Engineers and designers have done
wonders with products, making them
simpler, cheaper and more capable all
at the same time. (Example: the IBM
Proprinter: 3 minutes to assemble,
vs. 30 minutes for an Epson.) Where
does the additional value come from
there, the assembly worker or the
engineer?
Labor by itself is worthless. You
can move stones from one end of a
field to the other and back all day,
taking much labor but making zero
value. The value produced by labor,
design, management, or any other
Page 8