5 ms·

Labor theory is an insufficient and poorly evidenced claim that does not align with reality.

yellowapple 4y ago
That's the case for pretty much all theories attempting to model something as famously nebulous and poorly-defined as human society. In light of that limitation, labor theory provides one of the less-wildly-inaccurate models; the issues with it are more around people claiming to champion it while simultaneously imagining themselves as part of some privileged intelligentsia, the very existence of which is indistinguishable from the very thing labor theory directly challenges/criticizes.
- vorpalhex 4y ago
  Labor theory posits that the capital value of an item is the sum of all labor to produce that item. That is wrong. See many goods sold above or below direct labor costs, eg silk.
  - yellowapple 4y ago
    The labor theory (and broader theories incorporating it) also posits that "price" and "value" are independent. That, combined with the position that value is a function of the labor to produce a good or service, is correct; people can and routinely do pay more or less for a good or service than what it's worth - that difference being dependent on the negotiating power of the buyer v. the seller, any transportation/delivery costs, and myriad other factors that have nothing to do with the actual good or service in question - and the employer/employee relationship is no exception.
    - vorpalhex 4y ago
      > value is a function of the labor to produce a good or service, is correct That appears plainly wrong. Take any rare good where demand for the good exceeds supply - per my original example of silk. More people want silk than there is supply of silk. The value of silk has nothing to do with it's labor cost. Even if tomorrow the labor of silk was entirely automated, silk would still be expensive. Nor is this some kind of break of negotiating power. There is no seller/buyer relationship which changes the scarce nature of silk and thus can decrease it's value.
      - yellowapple 4y ago
        > That appears plainly wrong. Appearances can be deceiving. > More people want silk than there is supply of silk. The value of silk has nothing to do with it's labor cost. Sure, but it has everything to do with the labor value - because again, cost and value are not necessarily the same thing. If more people want silk than there is supply of silk, then that increases the value of the silk itself and in turn increases the value of the labor to produce said silk. This effect really shouldn't be that unintuitive. If more people want programmers than there is a supply of programmers, then obviously this would raise the value of programmer labor, no? Why would this be any different for a product of said labor? > There is no seller/buyer relationship which changes the scarce nature of silk and thus can decrease it's value. Sure there is. Do you think that wholesale and retail prices are always identical?
        vorpalhex 4y ago
        > Appearances can be deceiving. They aren't in this case. There's a reason I'm picking silk. As a hint, palladium and tritium would also be good picks. > If more people want silk than there is supply of silk, then that increases the value of the silk itself and in turn increases the value of the labor to produce said silk. Tomorrow, a famous tik toker posts about how awesome making silk is. Hundreds of thousands of young adults decide to work in the silk industry - and are in fact hired. The price of silk does not move. Not one inch. Even though the labor pool has expanded (silk production is not a difficult skill) the cost has not moved - yet the labor value of silk has crashed! Our young adults make terrible wages! > Why would this be any different for a product of said labor? Not all products behave like software or agile consulting. There is more or less infinite software. There is a fixed cap of most other things. > Do you think that wholesale and retail prices are always identical? Tomorrow you go to a silk seller and ask to buy silk. The silk seller tells you it will be $40 a yard. You laugh and tell the silk seller that no no, you aren't making a garment. You want to buy many warehouses of silk. The silk seller returns your laugh. "That will be $40 a yard still." You get frustrated and tell the silk seller you will buy ALL of his inventory. Metric tons if needed. The silk seller replies there is not that much silk in the world, but what he has will still be $40 a yard. Maybe next year he can give you some more.

That's the case for pretty much all theories attempting to model something as famously nebulous and poorly-defined as human society. In light of that limitation, labor theory provides one of the less-wildly-inaccurate models; the issues with it are more around people claiming to champion it while simultaneously imagining themselves as part of some privileged intelligentsia, the very existence of which is indistinguishable from the very thing labor theory directly challenges/criticizes.

vorpalhex 4y ago
Labor theory posits that the capital value of an item is the sum of all labor to produce that item. That is wrong. See many goods sold above or below direct labor costs, eg silk.
- yellowapple 4y ago
  The labor theory (and broader theories incorporating it) also posits that "price" and "value" are independent. That, combined with the position that value is a function of the labor to produce a good or service, is correct; people can and routinely do pay more or less for a good or service than what it's worth - that difference being dependent on the negotiating power of the buyer v. the seller, any transportation/delivery costs, and myriad other factors that have nothing to do with the actual good or service in question - and the employer/employee relationship is no exception.
  - vorpalhex 4y ago
    > value is a function of the labor to produce a good or service, is correct That appears plainly wrong. Take any rare good where demand for the good exceeds supply - per my original example of silk. More people want silk than there is supply of silk. The value of silk has nothing to do with it's labor cost. Even if tomorrow the labor of silk was entirely automated, silk would still be expensive. Nor is this some kind of break of negotiating power. There is no seller/buyer relationship which changes the scarce nature of silk and thus can decrease it's value.
    - yellowapple 4y ago
      > That appears plainly wrong. Appearances can be deceiving. > More people want silk than there is supply of silk. The value of silk has nothing to do with it's labor cost. Sure, but it has everything to do with the labor value - because again, cost and value are not necessarily the same thing. If more people want silk than there is supply of silk, then that increases the value of the silk itself and in turn increases the value of the labor to produce said silk. This effect really shouldn't be that unintuitive. If more people want programmers than there is a supply of programmers, then obviously this would raise the value of programmer labor, no? Why would this be any different for a product of said labor? > There is no seller/buyer relationship which changes the scarce nature of silk and thus can decrease it's value. Sure there is. Do you think that wholesale and retail prices are always identical?
      - vorpalhex 4y ago
        > Appearances can be deceiving. They aren't in this case. There's a reason I'm picking silk. As a hint, palladium and tritium would also be good picks. > If more people want silk than there is supply of silk, then that increases the value of the silk itself and in turn increases the value of the labor to produce said silk. Tomorrow, a famous tik toker posts about how awesome making silk is. Hundreds of thousands of young adults decide to work in the silk industry - and are in fact hired. The price of silk does not move. Not one inch. Even though the labor pool has expanded (silk production is not a difficult skill) the cost has not moved - yet the labor value of silk has crashed! Our young adults make terrible wages! > Why would this be any different for a product of said labor? Not all products behave like software or agile consulting. There is more or less infinite software. There is a fixed cap of most other things. > Do you think that wholesale and retail prices are always identical? Tomorrow you go to a silk seller and ask to buy silk. The silk seller tells you it will be $40 a yard. You laugh and tell the silk seller that no no, you aren't making a garment. You want to buy many warehouses of silk. The silk seller returns your laugh. "That will be $40 a yard still." You get frustrated and tell the silk seller you will buy ALL of his inventory. Metric tons if needed. The silk seller replies there is not that much silk in the world, but what he has will still be $40 a yard. Maybe next year he can give you some more.