4 ms·

As the Wikipedia article states, the labour theory of value (LTV) was replaced by the theory of marginal utility in mainstream economics due to its major incons

by taffer 4mo ago

As the Wikipedia article states, the labour theory of value (LTV) was replaced by the theory of marginal utility in mainstream economics due to its major inconsistencies. > Take Google as another example. The profit per employee has famously been (at times) over $1 million per year. So, are you saying that the employees were exploited in some way? I could give you examples of how value is created without any work at all.

jmyeet 4mo ago
> As the Wikipedia article states, the labour theory of value (LTV) was replaced by the theory of marginal utility in mainstream economics due to its major inconsistencies. "Mainstream economics" is doing a lot of heavy lifting. It didn't "replace" LTV. Marginal utility is simply an an ideological rejection of it with the confusion of price vs value that ignores class exploitation. The proponents of this were the gensis of the so-called "Austrian school" [1] and thus the fathers of neoliberalism [2]. > So, are you saying that the employees were exploited in some way? Yes, objectively, as measured by profit. The counterargument is that many were well-paid compared to their non-tech colleagues. While true, they still created way more value than what they were paid. > I could give you examples of how value is created without any work at all. I'm all ears. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_school_of_economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_school_of_economics [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
- taffer 4mo ago
  > "Mainstream economics" is doing a lot of heavy lifting. As is "mainstream medicine" or "mainstream climate science". If you don't trust mainstream science, you must be either extremely smart or just delusional.
  - _DeadFred_ 4mo ago
    Soft sciences are not at all the same thing as hard science.
    - taffer 4mo ago
      Neither is medicine, climate science, nor the marxist interpretation of the labor theory of value I was replying to.
  - andrekandre 4mo ago
    economics isn't a hard science though; and there is a lot of politics underlying a lot of theory there (see the laffer curve/trickle down etc)
  - demorro 4mo ago
    Surely you can see that not trusting mainstream economics shouldn't be as controversial as the hard sciences. Mainstream economics consistently fails to make correct or replicatable predictions.
- taffer 4mo ago
  > > I could give you examples of how value is created without any work at all. > I'm all ears. Ageing whisky.
  - blocko 4mo ago
    There's a great deal of labor involved in building+preparing casks, storing them, monitoring, maintaining the temp/humidity of a space. Additionally, a good chunk of the price of aged whisky is just due to the fact that the product is constantly evaporating and you're getting a lower yield on the same initial input. Price increase != value created
    - taffer 4mo ago
      You're missing the point. The difference between three-year-old and fifteen-year-old whisky is mainly due to capital costs, not labour costs. According to the LVT, capital costs are not real. > product is constantly evaporating and you're getting a lower yield on the same initial input This so-called 'angel's share' accounts for ~2% per year, not 10%.
      - regularization 4mo ago
        > According to the LVT, capital costs are not real. Capital costs are not real in LTV? A carpenter takes wood, nails and hammer and creates value making tables. Hammers are a capital cost and are made the same way - workers are a factory xreate value by assembling steel and other components making a hammer. Steel workers un a steel mill create value by turning iron into steel. Iron miners create wealth by mining iron. And so on. Capital costs are accounted for. Not turtles all the way down, but labor - newly created value comes from labor. The value in a hammer comes from the labor to make it a year ago when you bought it.
  - overfeed 4mo ago
    Some laboror has to cask it first.
    - 4mo ago
overfeed 4mo ago
> So, are you saying that the employees were exploited in some way? Google ads "extracted" value from traditional advertising in newspapers and magazines, so the "exploitation" (or efficiency gains, if you're charitable) came at the expense of employees at other organizations worldwide.

by taffer 4mo ago

jmyeet 4mo ago

> As the Wikipedia article states, the labour theory of value (LTV) was replaced by the theory of marginal utility in mainstream economics due to its major inconsistencies. "Mainstream economics" is doing a lot of heavy lifting. It didn't "replace" LTV. Marginal utility is simply an an ideological rejection of it with the confusion of price vs value that ignores class exploitation. The proponents of this were the gensis of the so-called "Austrian school" [1] and thus the fathers of neoliberalism [2]. > So, are you saying that the employees were exploited in some way? Yes, objectively, as measured by profit. The counterargument is that many were well-paid compared to their non-tech colleagues. While true, they still created way more value than what they were paid. > I could give you examples of how value is created without any work at all. I'm all ears. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_school_of_economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_school_of_economics [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

taffer 4mo ago
> "Mainstream economics" is doing a lot of heavy lifting. As is "mainstream medicine" or "mainstream climate science". If you don't trust mainstream science, you must be either extremely smart or just delusional.
- _DeadFred_ 4mo ago
  Soft sciences are not at all the same thing as hard science.
  - taffer 4mo ago
    Neither is medicine, climate science, nor the marxist interpretation of the labor theory of value I was replying to.
- andrekandre 4mo ago
  economics isn't a hard science though; and there is a lot of politics underlying a lot of theory there (see the laffer curve/trickle down etc)
- demorro 4mo ago
  Surely you can see that not trusting mainstream economics shouldn't be as controversial as the hard sciences. Mainstream economics consistently fails to make correct or replicatable predictions.
taffer 4mo ago
> > I could give you examples of how value is created without any work at all. > I'm all ears. Ageing whisky.
- blocko 4mo ago
  There's a great deal of labor involved in building+preparing casks, storing them, monitoring, maintaining the temp/humidity of a space. Additionally, a good chunk of the price of aged whisky is just due to the fact that the product is constantly evaporating and you're getting a lower yield on the same initial input. Price increase != value created
  - taffer 4mo ago
    You're missing the point. The difference between three-year-old and fifteen-year-old whisky is mainly due to capital costs, not labour costs. According to the LVT, capital costs are not real. > product is constantly evaporating and you're getting a lower yield on the same initial input This so-called 'angel's share' accounts for ~2% per year, not 10%.
    - regularization 4mo ago
      > According to the LVT, capital costs are not real. Capital costs are not real in LTV? A carpenter takes wood, nails and hammer and creates value making tables. Hammers are a capital cost and are made the same way - workers are a factory xreate value by assembling steel and other components making a hammer. Steel workers un a steel mill create value by turning iron into steel. Iron miners create wealth by mining iron. And so on. Capital costs are accounted for. Not turtles all the way down, but labor - newly created value comes from labor. The value in a hammer comes from the labor to make it a year ago when you bought it.
- overfeed 4mo ago
  Some laboror has to cask it first.
  - 4mo ago

overfeed 4mo ago

> So, are you saying that the employees were exploited in some way? Google ads "extracted" value from traditional advertising in newspapers and magazines, so the "exploitation" (or efficiency gains, if you're charitable) came at the expense of employees at other organizations worldwide.