3 ms·

> The price the employer gets for the product of my labor is the value the employer is getting for it. This is demonstrably untrue. Your employer almost necess

> The price the employer gets for the product of my labor is the value the employer is getting for it. This is demonstrably untrue. Your employer almost necessarily needs to profit from hiring you. If they hire you at 30$, they may make 40$. So, the value they are provided in hiring you is roughly 40$. The price they pay is 30$. Edit: this was likely a bad example because people are going to fly off the rails thinking I'm advocating for the LTV, but the point I'm trying to show is this: the employer is willing to pay the price of 30$ because they value the employee's work higher than the cost of the currency. So, to state it again, the price is 30$, but the value is > 30$. This isn't even a marxist critique. This is mainstream economics saying that value and price are distinct. > There is no grand con in the free market exchange process. No exploitation that Marxists uncovered that condemns all employers as exploiters who deserve to have their property seized. I don't care. I'm just hoping that you can use basic economic terminology correct before calling others quacks.

oh_sigh 7y ago
They don't get "provided" value simply by hiring you, they derive value generally from hiring you and mixing your labor with their capital. OP was talking about the value for the worker in taking a wage from an employer in the part you quoted. Clearly the employer wants to make a profit from hiring employees - I don't see how you can think OP would think otherwise based on what they wrote. An employer who hires people who only cost money will soon be out of capital, and same with an employer who just breaks even(since there is uncertainty in any forecast, and you can't go below $0)
- ianleeclark 7y ago
  > They don't get "provided" value simply by hiring you This might be a dialectual/regional difference, but the word, at least to me, means something along the lines of "gain access to." If a value is a perceived benefit of a good or service, then "gaining access to a resource through hiring" is semantically the same as "the value they are provided in hiring you." This really isn't an ideological argument I'm providing, the guy just isn't using the two words correctly in the context that he's speaking. > I don't see how you can think OP would think otherwise based on what they wrote. It's just incredibly confusing when he's mixing terminology that has standard definitions within economics.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - CryptoPunk 7y ago
    Let's go over this again. I stated: >Value is subjective. If I value my free time at $20 an hour, and you value my labor at $40 an hour, we will be able to come to an agreement where you pay me $30 an hour, and we will both benefit according to our subjective perception of value. You responded with: >This is the price, not value. Value is the benefit provided to an economic agent from a good or service, whereas price is the exchange value for a good or service. What exactly are you referring to here? I stated that "if I value my free time at $20", and then proferred a situation where we agree to a labor agreement where I am paid $30, and suggested that I would be profiting according to my subjective valuation of said trade of time for money. I didn't equate the price I got for my labor with how much I value it at. Likewise, I didn't say that the employer who values my labor at $40 is getting $30 of value as a result of that being the price they paid for it. I was actually extremely clear on both points which makes your misunderstanding frustrating in how inconsiderate it is. So how about we start our discussion over again instead of you strawmanning me from the very beginning and then lecturing me on economic terminology. >This might be a dialectual/regional difference, but the word, at least to me, means something along the lines of "gain access to." If a value is a perceived benefit of a good or service, then "gaining access to a resource through hiring" is semantically the same as "the value they are provided in hiring you." You're lecturing on using precise economic terminology and are now using this vague and informal connotation based definition of value? Anyway, you're totally missing the point. The point your interlocutor made is that the profit they earn from selling the product of the labor is not solely from the value contributed by the labor they bought, as you implied in your previous commenting where you equated price the employer sells the labor at as the value they get from it. The product of the labor that the employer is selling is actually a product of a combination of the labor they bought plus the capital they own and utilized (mixed) with the labor. The overlooking of the value that their capital contributed to the production of the good/service is a classic oversight of Marxists.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]

oh_sigh 7y ago

They don't get "provided" value simply by hiring you, they derive value generally from hiring you and mixing your labor with their capital. OP was talking about the value for the worker in taking a wage from an employer in the part you quoted. Clearly the employer wants to make a profit from hiring employees - I don't see how you can think OP would think otherwise based on what they wrote. An employer who hires people who only cost money will soon be out of capital, and same with an employer who just breaks even(since there is uncertainty in any forecast, and you can't go below $0)

ianleeclark 7y ago
> They don't get "provided" value simply by hiring you This might be a dialectual/regional difference, but the word, at least to me, means something along the lines of "gain access to." If a value is a perceived benefit of a good or service, then "gaining access to a resource through hiring" is semantically the same as "the value they are provided in hiring you." This really isn't an ideological argument I'm providing, the guy just isn't using the two words correctly in the context that he's speaking. > I don't see how you can think OP would think otherwise based on what they wrote. It's just incredibly confusing when he's mixing terminology that has standard definitions within economics.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- CryptoPunk 7y ago
  Let's go over this again. I stated: >Value is subjective. If I value my free time at $20 an hour, and you value my labor at $40 an hour, we will be able to come to an agreement where you pay me $30 an hour, and we will both benefit according to our subjective perception of value. You responded with: >This is the price, not value. Value is the benefit provided to an economic agent from a good or service, whereas price is the exchange value for a good or service. What exactly are you referring to here? I stated that "if I value my free time at $20", and then proferred a situation where we agree to a labor agreement where I am paid $30, and suggested that I would be profiting according to my subjective valuation of said trade of time for money. I didn't equate the price I got for my labor with how much I value it at. Likewise, I didn't say that the employer who values my labor at $40 is getting $30 of value as a result of that being the price they paid for it. I was actually extremely clear on both points which makes your misunderstanding frustrating in how inconsiderate it is. So how about we start our discussion over again instead of you strawmanning me from the very beginning and then lecturing me on economic terminology. >This might be a dialectual/regional difference, but the word, at least to me, means something along the lines of "gain access to." If a value is a perceived benefit of a good or service, then "gaining access to a resource through hiring" is semantically the same as "the value they are provided in hiring you." You're lecturing on using precise economic terminology and are now using this vague and informal connotation based definition of value? Anyway, you're totally missing the point. The point your interlocutor made is that the profit they earn from selling the product of the labor is not solely from the value contributed by the labor they bought, as you implied in your previous commenting where you equated price the employer sells the labor at as the value they get from it. The product of the labor that the employer is selling is actually a product of a combination of the labor they bought plus the capital they own and utilized (mixed) with the labor. The overlooking of the value that their capital contributed to the production of the good/service is a classic oversight of Marxists.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]