4 ms·

> Labor theory of value is trivially provable wrong (daily fluctuating prices, loss of value because of introduction of better products, etc.). I think, at a m

> Labor theory of value is trivially provable wrong (daily fluctuating prices, loss of value because of introduction of better products, etc.). I think, at a minimum, you should understand what the Labor Theory of Value is, before claiming that it is trivial to prove it wrong.

kbutler 3y ago
Labor Theory of Value: The value of a commodity can be objectively measured by the hours of socially necessary labor required to produce it. So the "value" of a commodity is fixed at the time of production. But what is "value"? It's not the utility ("use value"). It's not the market price, which changes over time. Marx and others try to map "value" to price (Transformation problem) and try to measure exploitation of workers using profits based on selling prices, so there's an attempt to consider this "value" as the correct, instrinsic worth of a commodity. Consider a brand-new in-the-box iPhone. It has a fixed labor-theory-value, yet its price and worth go down every year as new models come out. How does labor theory of value help to understand this? Mainstream economists had moved to a subjective value model even before Marx's death. See the "Marginal Revolution". This explains that the value of the old model iPhone is reduced because it is less useful than competing newer models, reducing the demand for the older model. Yet according to labor theory of value, its value is determined by its production. Thus "value" is best understood as a measure of a cost of production, not as a measure of the "worth" of a commodity. Wasteful labor? More cost, not more worth. Increased skill? Reduced labor cost to produce. Better tools/automation? Reduced labor, reduced cost. Where's the misunderstanding?
- hcarvalhoalves 3y ago
  The worker who works the land can afford the produce of said land. The worker who works building thousands of iPhones can’t afford an iPhone. Something’s fucked up.
  - brightlancer 3y ago
    > The worker who works building thousands of iPhones can’t afford an iPhone. What worker can build one iPhone, let alone thousands? Comparing them to a subsistence farmer is just absurd.
  - kbutler 3y ago
    What's messed up is the oversimplification. An hour of labor can produce wildly different amounts of value with different tasks, skill, materials, and especially capital equipment. What's the value of a brain surgeon working with a shovel on a farm for 10 hours? Removing a brain tumor in a 10 hour surgery? Doing brain surgery for 10 hours, but with only primitive tools? Should they be paid the same? Why or why not?
    - hcarvalhoalves 3y ago
      I believe you’re mudding the argument with unrelated statements I didn’t make: brain surgeons working on a farm. It’s simply: a worker who participates in the productive chain with labor can’t benefit from the value added by said labor. If thousands of iPhone are assembled by the worker, but said worker can’t afford even ONE iPhone, implicitly this means we value the worker 1/100000 of an iPhone. If you think this is fair and proportional compensation, ok, but that’s an opinion. It’s not a natural law. I don’t think wage stagnation and pornographic profit margins are fair.
      - kbutler 3y ago
        This clearly demonstrates that the worker's labor is not the primary source of value of the product.
    - deciplex 3y ago
      > An hour of labor can produce wildly different amounts of value with different tasks, skill, materials, and especially capital equipment. This is what I mean when I say "you should understand the labor theory of value before critiquing it." Capital goods are labor. They represent the accumulated labor required to produce them. If producing something requires a large amount of capital goods, then the labor that went into producing those capital goods is incorporated into the value of the product. You can apply a similar argument to acquired skills, etc.
      - kbutler 3y ago
        Yes, "dead labor" if I recall Marx's term, embodied in the capital good - the useful part is the recognition that capital is simply the saved surplus value from previous work, applied to magnify current work. But trying to apply the labor-value this way just further illustrates the mistake in asserting you can attribute value to the hours of labor in a finished good. If no shovel is available, the value of a hole is the labor required to dig it with bare hands. But if shovels are available, the value of the hole is the value of the labor of digging the hole plus the fraction of the labor embodied in the shovel that was consumed in digging the hole. But if you introduce power tools, the value of the hole is the fraction of the labor of the construction and maintenance of the power tool that was consumed, plus the labor of the operator. There is no rational way to form an equivalence of these things, except if you consider them costs of the hole, rather than the value of the hole. Those different "hours of labor" whether current or past have different values based on how they are applied (utility value) rather than just "labor hours". And then as a bonus, the hole has the same utility value regardless of how it was dug.

kbutler 3y ago

Labor Theory of Value: The value of a commodity can be objectively measured by the hours of socially necessary labor required to produce it. So the "value" of a commodity is fixed at the time of production. But what is "value"? It's not the utility ("use value"). It's not the market price, which changes over time. Marx and others try to map "value" to price (Transformation problem) and try to measure exploitation of workers using profits based on selling prices, so there's an attempt to consider this "value" as the correct, instrinsic worth of a commodity. Consider a brand-new in-the-box iPhone. It has a fixed labor-theory-value, yet its price and worth go down every year as new models come out. How does labor theory of value help to understand this? Mainstream economists had moved to a subjective value model even before Marx's death. See the "Marginal Revolution". This explains that the value of the old model iPhone is reduced because it is less useful than competing newer models, reducing the demand for the older model. Yet according to labor theory of value, its value is determined by its production. Thus "value" is best understood as a measure of a cost of production, not as a measure of the "worth" of a commodity. Wasteful labor? More cost, not more worth. Increased skill? Reduced labor cost to produce. Better tools/automation? Reduced labor, reduced cost. Where's the misunderstanding?

hcarvalhoalves 3y ago
The worker who works the land can afford the produce of said land. The worker who works building thousands of iPhones can’t afford an iPhone. Something’s fucked up.
- brightlancer 3y ago
  > The worker who works building thousands of iPhones can’t afford an iPhone. What worker can build one iPhone, let alone thousands? Comparing them to a subsistence farmer is just absurd.
- kbutler 3y ago
  What's messed up is the oversimplification. An hour of labor can produce wildly different amounts of value with different tasks, skill, materials, and especially capital equipment. What's the value of a brain surgeon working with a shovel on a farm for 10 hours? Removing a brain tumor in a 10 hour surgery? Doing brain surgery for 10 hours, but with only primitive tools? Should they be paid the same? Why or why not?
  - hcarvalhoalves 3y ago
    I believe you’re mudding the argument with unrelated statements I didn’t make: brain surgeons working on a farm. It’s simply: a worker who participates in the productive chain with labor can’t benefit from the value added by said labor. If thousands of iPhone are assembled by the worker, but said worker can’t afford even ONE iPhone, implicitly this means we value the worker 1/100000 of an iPhone. If you think this is fair and proportional compensation, ok, but that’s an opinion. It’s not a natural law. I don’t think wage stagnation and pornographic profit margins are fair.
    - kbutler 3y ago
      This clearly demonstrates that the worker's labor is not the primary source of value of the product.
  - deciplex 3y ago
    > An hour of labor can produce wildly different amounts of value with different tasks, skill, materials, and especially capital equipment. This is what I mean when I say "you should understand the labor theory of value before critiquing it." Capital goods are labor. They represent the accumulated labor required to produce them. If producing something requires a large amount of capital goods, then the labor that went into producing those capital goods is incorporated into the value of the product. You can apply a similar argument to acquired skills, etc.
    - kbutler 3y ago
      Yes, "dead labor" if I recall Marx's term, embodied in the capital good - the useful part is the recognition that capital is simply the saved surplus value from previous work, applied to magnify current work. But trying to apply the labor-value this way just further illustrates the mistake in asserting you can attribute value to the hours of labor in a finished good. If no shovel is available, the value of a hole is the labor required to dig it with bare hands. But if shovels are available, the value of the hole is the value of the labor of digging the hole plus the fraction of the labor embodied in the shovel that was consumed in digging the hole. But if you introduce power tools, the value of the hole is the fraction of the labor of the construction and maintenance of the power tool that was consumed, plus the labor of the operator. There is no rational way to form an equivalence of these things, except if you consider them costs of the hole, rather than the value of the hole. Those different "hours of labor" whether current or past have different values based on how they are applied (utility value) rather than just "labor hours". And then as a bonus, the hole has the same utility value regardless of how it was dug.