3 ms·

This seems to be predicated on the labor theory of value, which is wrong. Put differently, if a company loses money, is it always because the employees aren’t

by nickff 5y ago

This seems to be predicated on the labor theory of value, which is wrong. Put differently, if a company loses money, is it always because the employees aren’t working hard enough?

boomboomsubban 5y ago
>if a company loses money, is it always because the employees aren’t working hard enough? Or a company could be ordering their employees to work in an unprofitable way, or the company could be spending the money on unnecessary non-labor expenditures...
- nickff 5y ago
  So pre-Facebook WhatsApp was the only well-run company, and the rest of them are ordering employees to work in unprofitable ways, and waste money?
  - boomboomsubban 5y ago
    A lot of the reason those companies aren't making profits is that they're buying other companies and making other investments, also known as unnecessary non-labor expenditures. And those were just two examples of ways a company could not turn a profit besides the workers not working hard enough.
woodruffw 5y ago
> This seems to be predicated on the labor theory of value, which is wrong. After all, Amazon famously doesn't need the labor of their employees to sell the products and services that support their value :-) The LTV doesn't guarantee a direct relationship between real labor and realized value (which is a combination of market and economic value): it describes a relationship between socially necessary labor and economic value.
vaidhy 5y ago
Isn't this the reason people put in enormous amount of hours in their startup? The idea that more labor equals more success seems to be built into our culture. The same idea is reflected in the argument that poor people stay poor because they are lazy/not willing to work. I personally think that idea is incorrect (and labor theory of value has limited application), but I have been seeing arguments where everyone picks and chooses the idea when it is applied personally vs applied to someone else.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

by nickff 5y ago

This seems to be predicated on the labor theory of value, which is wrong. Put differently, if a company loses money, is it always because the employees aren’t working hard enough?

boomboomsubban 5y ago

>if a company loses money, is it always because the employees aren’t working hard enough? Or a company could be ordering their employees to work in an unprofitable way, or the company could be spending the money on unnecessary non-labor expenditures...

nickff 5y ago
So pre-Facebook WhatsApp was the only well-run company, and the rest of them are ordering employees to work in unprofitable ways, and waste money?
- boomboomsubban 5y ago
  A lot of the reason those companies aren't making profits is that they're buying other companies and making other investments, also known as unnecessary non-labor expenditures. And those were just two examples of ways a company could not turn a profit besides the workers not working hard enough.

woodruffw 5y ago

> This seems to be predicated on the labor theory of value, which is wrong. After all, Amazon famously doesn't need the labor of their employees to sell the products and services that support their value :-) The LTV doesn't guarantee a direct relationship between real labor and realized value (which is a combination of market and economic value): it describes a relationship between socially necessary labor and economic value.

vaidhy 5y ago

Isn't this the reason people put in enormous amount of hours in their startup? The idea that more labor equals more success seems to be built into our culture. The same idea is reflected in the argument that poor people stay poor because they are lazy/not willing to work. I personally think that idea is incorrect (and labor theory of value has limited application), but I have been seeing arguments where everyone picks and chooses the idea when it is applied personally vs applied to someone else.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]