5 ms·

> 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

> 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]
- interpenetrate 7y ago
  >The overlooking of the value that their capital provided is a classic oversight of Marxists. this fundamental concept is called constant capital and it is of course introduced in the opening chapters of capital vol 1
  - CryptoPunk 7y ago
    Marx stated that constant capital contributed no new value to the production - that its contribution was equivalent to its depreciation, and thus on the balance, zero. This is more of his pure economic illiteracy and quackery. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constant_capital#Why_%22constant%22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constant_capital#Why_%22consta...? So no, Marx did NOT recognize "the value that [the investors'] capital provided" in the production of goods/services. His silly theory put the net value contributed by the capital at zero. Apparently working for years to create a machine that can automate berry picking is identical in value to picking berries every day for years - the long-term investment of time into a project to raise productivity added no value according to him. The man and his economic theories are absurd. In one sense, they are exactly what they claim to be: anti-capitalist. They are hostile to the processes that build capital.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - dang 7y ago
      Please stop, and please keep ideological flamewar off HN in the future, regardless of what Marx was wrong about.

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]
interpenetrate 7y ago
>The overlooking of the value that their capital provided is a classic oversight of Marxists. this fundamental concept is called constant capital and it is of course introduced in the opening chapters of capital vol 1
- CryptoPunk 7y ago
  Marx stated that constant capital contributed no new value to the production - that its contribution was equivalent to its depreciation, and thus on the balance, zero. This is more of his pure economic illiteracy and quackery. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constant_capital#Why_%22constant%22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constant_capital#Why_%22consta...? So no, Marx did NOT recognize "the value that [the investors'] capital provided" in the production of goods/services. His silly theory put the net value contributed by the capital at zero. Apparently working for years to create a machine that can automate berry picking is identical in value to picking berries every day for years - the long-term investment of time into a project to raise productivity added no value according to him. The man and his economic theories are absurd. In one sense, they are exactly what they claim to be: anti-capitalist. They are hostile to the processes that build capital.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - dang 7y ago
    Please stop, and please keep ideological flamewar off HN in the future, regardless of what Marx was wrong about.