Good Wording For Male Friend

Response Schydlowsky Daniel Daniel Schydlovsky

1) The course lower prices.

Daniel Schydlowsky says that when there is increased productivity, we have the option to receive the increase in two ways: as more goods, or greater amount of leisure. He says he received more goods because prices are cheaper, and more leisure when you reduce the working day.
seems that if we have the opportunity to choose how we will get our increase in productivity, why would not accept that we are required to do by way of increasing our leisure, and could freely choose to receive a greater quantity of goods . Why think only of reducing the time when increases our productivity if we can build on that increase to consume more, improving our standard of living?.
The same argument has been advanced by Hans Rothgiesser , as mentioned in another post .
But is it true that we can receive more goods in proportion to our increase in productivity? Is it true that prices are cheaper in proportion to our increase in productivity, allowing us therefore eat more each time?

is not true, because, for starters, not all prices are cheaper. The worst thing is that cheaper prices are less for the poor, the needy. Why? Because the prices of food, housing and transportation are not decreasing. And if you do not have the good fortune to have access to free health and education, know that the prices of these services also tend to become cheaper. Any housewife knows that the prices of these things, which consumes almost the entire budget of the poorest, have not declined and, by contrast, tend to rise the more acute is the current global crisis, the more land intended crop to biofuels, the more capital looking to speculate on the corn and wheat, the more oil goes and the more scarce housing in urban areas. Yes
become cheaper, it is true, the prices of clothing, and more are reducing prices of electrical appliances and unnecessary items.
But for the great majority of workers, these items themselves are cheaper are precisely those smaller portion of their budgets represent, for the simple reason that the more tight is the budget of a family, ignores most expendable things and less of the essential.
However, these great masses of workers do increase their productivity, and they have done in gigantic proportions with the current technological revolution. Million workers worldwide are increasing so prodigious productivity of automakers, electronics, footwear, sporting goods, dishes, sweets, and so anything that is precisely what can least afford to buy. Perhaps, then, can be said that increasing productivity is offset by the increased consumption of goods?
And even for those who earn meager wages less, and who can afford the consumption of these items are not essential, is it true that the increase in consumption corresponds to the increase in productivity? Nor is, for the simple reason that, for the middle class, spending on food, health, transport, education and housing continues to occupy much of your budget.
So the benefit of falling prices , which has meant that occur Schydlowsky universally, is nonexistent for large masses, and only exists in part to others.
In case one or the other (non-existent or in part), the benefit does not offset the increase in productivity, at least it does for the vast majority of humanity, for the vast majority who are workers.

2) The cheap prices lowering wages.

Moreover, assuming that happens, eventually, lower prices for the things of first necessity, it is certain that this reduction would result by way of market mechanisms in a drop in wages.
In García's first administration had an opportunity to experience how it meets this law of value (very well explained by Marx and Engels), when, after years of price controls on milk, tickets and other urban necessities, wages had been depressed to unprecedented levels (30 per month was allowable wage at the time).
What happened in Peru at that time is the greatest empirical evidence that Engels was right when he said: "long Any reduction in prices of means of subsistence of the worker is equal to a value lower workforce and leads, ultimately, to a corresponding low salary. "
Which is explained by the law of value. For those not familiar with it, we can try a simpler explanation. If any of us are unemployed, urgency of finding work will be done the following question: "How much is the minimum I need to win to survive?". Then fix this (the lowest possible) that allows it to offer their labor at a price more attractive to the employer, competing for it with other unemployed who are struggling to get the same job. The tighter the number, the greater your chances of getting the job, considering that the employer, when compare to applicants of equal qualifications, decide undoubtedly take that, including costs less.
Anyone who has gone through this situation knows what we mean. If there were unemployment (specifically, the time reduction is the direct way to obtain full employment), things would be different. but as we know, unemployment is a permanent evil of capitalism. Fluctuates, but does not disappear.
So, as we see, by way of lower prices is not possible for the worker is compensated for the increase in productivity.
not true that "any of the two options," as DS, work.