I disagree with tax & rent being lumped together. I have no problem with my (high) tax rate as it supports education, infrastructure, etc. The outrageously inflated rent goes to the same guy that stole 95% of your pizza in the first place.
While I agree in principle, when tax dollars go to corporate tax cuts, handouts to failing financial institutions, and billionaire lunatics selling snake-oil space-based internet “solutions”, its easy to get disillusioned about taxes.
We absolutely should be taxed to a high degree, but that money needs to be spent on collective benefits, not private corporate interests.
That’s a different topic though! Don’t conflate collecting funds with usage/distribution of funds. We all need to accept that we have to pay (high) taxes. That the upper 10% haven’t paid their fair share in decades and that there is misuse has nothing to do with my tax rate. We need the upper 10% to pay way way more and we need better accountability for usage of the money. Pretty much regardless of where you live on this planet by the way.
Well said!
And to blowing up children for being born to the wrong group of people.
Saying taxes pay for cuts to someone else’s taxes is nonsensical in this context. No money is spent on tax cuts.
You realize someone has to pay for public infrastructure and services, yes? If corporate interests do not pay the taxes that are typically expected of them, then someone else will have to cough up that money, or services will need to be cut.
“Paying” for tax cuts makes sense in the context of changing budgets while trying to keep them balanced. But no money is ever spent on tax cuts. It’s spent on the public infrastructure and services you mentioned. If you properly account for the money as being used to pay for public goods, then saying it’s also used to pay for tax cuts would be double counting.
Having to pay more for a shared cost so that someone else can pay less… I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the shorthand “pay for someone else’s tax cuts”.
Alice and Bob agree to buy a shared lumber splitter. Alice takes a loan to pay for it, which Bob agrees to pay half of. When payments are due, Bob bails and does not pay, and he uses the lumber splitter anyways. Now Alice has to also pay the share that Bob agreed to pay.
You are paying more so that someone else can pay less.
Some people don’t seem to understand the meme and think this pie represents a companies whole revenue. This pie represents the revenue generated from an individuals labor. The current glaring issue with capitalism is that people think your employer is entitled to a slice of the labors pie. Your employer is entitled to Zero percent of the revenue you generate from your labor! But sadly the only reason the imaginary line in the stock market goes up is become employers and “investors” have stolen your value. While the meme is over simplified it’s accurate. Also your bosses/CEOs labor value is far lower than they would have you believe.
Shop local, give money to co-ops, unionize your work place, unionize your living space (renter unions are a thing.), volunteer as often as possible, give leftovers to the homeless if you regularly don’t eat your leftovers, VOTE, attend town halls when able, get to know your neighbors even if you don’t speak the same language or have a rough past with them, I can go on but these things can help at the local level and prevent the race to the bottom we’re currently stuck in.
Eh, actually there are arguments to be made for the employer being entitled to a share of the value, yes.
They provide the materials, the tools and machinery, the designs that are being made (assuming some sort of manufacturing company for this example). They also carry the risk (unless of course they are a corporation, the ridiculous entity created to reap the advantages of personhood while avoiding all its responsibilities and drawbacks).
So, a slice of the pizza should be for them, but certainly not 7/8.
They provide the materials, the tools and machinery, the designs that are being made (assuming some sort of manufacturing company for this example).
Other workers made the materials, the tools, the machinery, and the designs. If the owner did they occupy a class position as a worker and owner.
They also carry the risk (unless of course they are a corporation, the ridiculous entity created to reap the advantages of personhood while avoiding all its responsibilities and drawbacks).
The risk that they might be a worker if their venture fails.
If the owner did they occupy a class position as a worker and owner.
Yup. Employers are entitled to a portion of total revenue proportional to the value they added. In the case of employers who perform necessary work, including administrative/clerical work, this can be a healthy sum. In the case of employers who solely fit the capitalist role of investor, this amount is $0.
No the employer is entitled to the value of the product or service. They are not entitled to the value created by their workers.
Your Second argument is false as well because they don’t get to pass on manufacturing and designing cost to the workers! That cost should be passed onto the customer. Your argument is lie that workers should have no work without the benevolence of their employers. If their work is so meaningless that the owners are entitled to the workers pie then way do the owners need them at all? It’s the reason why corporations always threaten to replace workers with machines or outsourcing but never actually do it. It’s because the true value in a for profit company is how much value you can steal from the lowly workers. In the machine threat, hiring a electrical, robotic, and software engineers cost more than 1000 minimum wage workers. But they can’t steal those engineers value because they are well educated and know their value. It’s what the 100% of the GOP and 50% DNC hate education. Education prevents exploitation… As for outsourcing all workers are catching onto the theft and are fighting back as well. Add in shipping costs, bad pr, taxes, and time, no way outsourcing will grow like it did in the 80s/90s/2000s.
Your Second argument is false as well because they don’t get to pass on manufacturing and designing cost to the workers! That cost should be passed onto the customer.
This cost is passed onto the consumer, just from what I’ve seen the value of the work calculations tend to be based on the price of the product, which actually includes this “passing on”.
Also your bosses/CEOs labor value is far lower than they would have you believe.
Zero is a very low number, yet they make my annual every month
I wouldn’t call it zero, per say - they are pretty good actors, performing for a crowd of rich fucks.
They might be good at what they do, but where’s the value?
All I can say is The Big Brain Economists have said that “the labor value theory is absolutely bunk and has no basis in reality.” Along with “only marxists believe this drivel.”
I’m not A Big Brain or an economist so I can’t say why they say these things, but I have seen a lot of pushback on this concept. I think it all comes down to the “agreement” we make when we accept a job, not that we have a choice. “Not working” is only an option for those that are already rich.
YES
I know my enemies
They’re the teachers who taught me to fight me:
✔ Compromise
✔ Conformity
✔ Assimilation
✔ Submission
✔ Ignorance
✔ Hypocrisy
✔ Brutality
✔ The eliteGenious comment.
All of which are American Dreams.
Reminder that while the labour theory of value can be practical to understand certain aspects of society, it is still culturally biased and not “objectively” true.
What creates value can only be answered in a cultural framework.
A reminder that the labour theory of value is not a marxist concept. When people wave their hands around and say “labor theory of value isn’t objectively true!!”, they’re shadowboxing a ghost.
Value != price
Umm… Thanks for that unnecessarily aggressive seeming and a bit incompehensible addendum, I guess?
I think it’s more assertive than aggressive.
What part of my response did you find incomprehensible?
Sorry, I interpreted it as aggressive. Figuring out tone in text form is hard and all that. Sorry that I wrongly accused you.
Things I didn’t get:
A reminder that the labour theory of value is not a marxist concept.
Marx hasn’t been explicity brought up yet (at least not in my comment). Only implicitly in the original post. Again: thought you were attacking me and was like “umm… So what?”
When people wave their hands around and say “labor theory of value isn’t objectively true!!”, they’re shadowboxing a ghost.
I thought you meant me, since that was what I was basically saying. 😅
Value != price
Now, that one wasn’t even implicitly mentioned.
I hope you don’t hold my misunderstanding against me.
I was certainly being critical, though it was unclear by your phrasing if you were saying what I thought you were. That’s why I was using passive language.
Marx hasn’t been explicity brought up yet
True enough, but I assume the implicit connection your comment was making to the op was the reference to “your stolen labour value”, which would be a marxist concept, and “labor theory of value” is commonly misused as a counterargument against marx’s central critique of stolen surplus labor. Feel free clarify if I got that wrong.
“Value != price”
Now, that one wasn’t even implicitly mentioned.
Well now i’m confused. If ‘labor theory of value isn’t objectively true’ isn’t making an argument about the price of a commodity not being equal to the labor it embodies, I am not sure what you’re trying to say by it.
Well now i’m confused. If ‘labor theory of value isn’t objectively true’ isn’t making an argument about the price of a commodity not being equal to the labor it embodies, I am not sure what you’re trying to say by it.
A theory o value doesn’t necessarily say anything about price. As you said: “value != price”.
Then what do you mean by “the labor theory of value is not objectively true”?
I’m not following what you specifically mean.
Could you provide an example of when the theory fails due to a culture’s differing views of value?
There’s not even academical consensus what value actually is, AFAIK. Do preasts add value to anything with their labour? If not: Do social counsellors? What if a priest acts as a counsellor? Ask different economists with their theories of value and you’ll get several answers.
Economic theories aren’t as rigid as theories from the natural sciences or mathematics. They are dependent on the culture in which they are perceived. A non-capitalist society would have different theories or value (or none at all) than we do.
This guy can explain it properly, I’m not an economist and kinda regret making that comment.
I actually watch Unlearning Economics, though only his video essays and not his streams. It’s been a while since I’ve seen this one.
So what we’re meaning is how much of Western culture undervalues care-giving since it produces no product, so stay at home moms, nannies, therapists, etc.
I thought of another example. In more nomadic and naturalist cultures, actually doing things to the environment destroys value, while leaving it be and allowing it to recover creates value. That is something else that is not accounted for in any theory of value to my knowledge.
An example would be American Indians in their dependance on foraging and hunting. I think that gives creedance to the idea that they thanked the things they harvested/hunted (I don’t know the factuality of that), since from their perspective they were only a burden that the ecosystem was ‘kind’ enough to support.
Thank you for that comment. I feel like finally someone understood what I was trying to get across.
Probably formulated it badly, but still: the answers are a bit exhausting.
EDIT: Thought of another example of your qase where harming nature decreases value. Having to buy carbon certificates for releasing CO2 models the destruction of value by polluting the environment.
Caregivers may not produce a product but they provide a service.
We have no issues with the plumber providing you a service and getting paid well for it, I don’t know why we have such a hard time with caregivers… :(
How is it culturally biased? It’s a theory of how exchange value functions within capitalism
You’re right. It’s one theory. There is however ongoing debate on which theory is “correct”.
This vid explains it quite well and with Simpsons clips so the hour of video is bearable:
Yeah but the way you said made it seem that value (exchange value according to Marx) is determined by cultural factors, thus making it untrue. The debate around labour theory of value have existed since the 19th century.
I was talking about the theory, not value. Sorry if that didn’t come across.
Now that I think about it: isn’t value culturally determined in many things? Why are apple products more expensive than other computers with the same specs? Why is a ticket to a Billie Eilish concert more valuable than one to my neighbor’s indie rock band?
There is a difference between use value and exchange value
isn’t value culturally determined in many things? Why are apple products more expensive than other computers with the same specs? Why is a ticket to a Billie Eilish concert more valuable than one to my neighbor’s indie rock band?
It really seems like you’re conflating ‘value’ and ‘price’ here.
Don’t the two correlate?
A theory o value doesn’t necessarily say anything about price. As you said: “vale != price”.
Don’t the two correlate?
What a mess we’ve made.
deleted by creator
But I have moved 8 tons of dirt from location A to location B. Who else is going to do it? I deserve compensation for my task.
You’re conflating value and utility.
Where?
LTV is about the value contribution of labour to the production of commodities, ultimately reducible to the subsistence requirements of that labour. It’s entirely from the supply side and can be thought of as embodied labour. I’ve had a very tiring day at work so won’t go into more detail now, but LTV doesn’t address perceived utility or demand side “contributions” to value as they are not materially grounded.
I wouldn’t have been able to write it this consise, but that’s kind of one thing I wanted to point towards in my original comment.
But labour’s contribution to value and - crucially - the irreducible subsistence requirements of that labour provide the only materially grounded analysis. They are not culturally bound, that’s the strength of LTV.
Doesn’t that only take the economics of people into account that are close to this irreducible subsistence requirement?
It provides a materialist foundation for further analyses that would otherwise be absent. It’s extremely useful for the precise reason that it is objectively true, while demand side economic models are ideologically based.
An LTV analysis begins with such workers because they are the original contributors of surplus value that is appropriated by the ownership class.
I recommend reading about it in more detail if you’re interested, I’m not certain but I think it is addressed in Chapter 6 of Capital 1. I don’t mean to be rude but I really did have a tiring day at work and you seem to be clutching at straws a little with some of your comments.
You guys have pizza left?
don’t forget insurance
Sir, this is a Wendy’s. And that is a pizza. And you know damn well you ate it yourself.
It’s not really stolen if I’ve agreed to share it for a price
The main argument is that we are in a system of people who are way more powerful than us, and have largely taken away our options until we agree. We’re facing widespread protests and international strikes right now because we don’t like the options they’ve given us, and we’re trying to change the system.
Just because somebody takes away your options until you agree, doesn’t mean they aren’t forcing you. Just because you happen to be satisfied with what you have, doesn’t mean that something better is not being denied from you, even though it is possible for you to have it.
Can’t say I’m in a situation like that. I do have the option of not working
Then you are extremely lucky, as am I. I have enough money saved up that I took a break.
However, something like 40% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck and just don’t have that option. The threat of poverty is constantly chasing them. When you’re in that situation, you will take the best option available even if it’s garbage or next to garbage.
There’s something to be said for coercion. Most people have no option to live without ‘agreeing’ to such a sharing model.
Not really the case for me
Great, so you can agree if you want, but most can not.
Sure
The point of this graphic is that you should dedicate your labour to doing something that you love and also benefits your community.
My wife and I were just talking about this topic and we landed on the Jessie Eisenberg movie VIVARIUM. It’s ab allegory for being trapped in our dystopia where there are forces at work trying to oppress us with useless labour. The fact is, currently, the only choice we have is to discover work that is meaningful for us – personally. My job is a helper job. I pay taxes. I do my helper job knowing I’ve contributed. It lightens the pain of the dystopia while we wait for the top 10% to start paying their fair share again. The Eisenhower tax rates were real.
See VIVARIUM – it may not be a banned film but the corporations sure as fuck don’t want you to see it. Welcome to your world.
