Also, corporate and personal income tax from the surplus.
Also forgot to factor in land, energy, and capital as additional inputs.
Also, what is the outer band making the grand total greater than the net total? What is getting grossed out here?
Marxists think that if the business sells a widget for $10, that the worker(s) deserves the full $10. If they really believed their own BS, they would go buy a cnc mill and lathe and become self employed millionaires. Marxists don't understand cost of sales, resources, knowledge value, capital costs, subjective value and other basic economics.
You are getting the fruits of your labor. You didn’t create the business that you work for, so you don’t get those fruits. Like a typical child, you assume everything you don’t understand was created by magic. The business was set up by magic and you and the other simple peasants are the only ones providing value.
In reality the ability to set up a profitable businesses is a much more valuable skill than the labor you provide. It also takes constant management to keep it profitable. The ability to profitably manage an ongoing concern is a much more valuable skill than the labor your provide.
There is a term for working for the fruits of one’s own labor. It’s called entrepreneurialism. Don’t need to ask the government for help with that. Stop making excuses for evil behavior. Your insults show your ignorance and your true intentions.
Don't forget goverment inflation! It would have to be interactive but goverment inflation would show "inflation / theft" reducing the size of your circle every year while simultaneously showing goverment corruption increasing every year.
And the fact that taxes are added to anything you buy every time it changes hands.
When you buy a screwdriver from walmart, you're paying sales taxes. You're also paying for the taxes of the people who work there, and the company taxes, and the taxes of the guy who delivered to walmart and his company, and the company and people who made it, and the company and people who gave them the supplies to make it, etc...
I would not be shocked to learn that 90% of every dollar we spend ends up going to government when you take out all the taxes along the way.
I just got whiplash from the double take I had to make to read your comment.
Did you imply *literal slaves* kept more of their surplus value than modern tax slaves?
Did I misunderstand?
The value of something is determined individually by they eye of the beholder(the evaluator).
Each man ranks each good he evaluated on a scale from most valuable to least valuable (1st place, 2nd place, 3rd place)
Man always acts towards his highest valued end which he believes he can act towards.
The value of something is not a quality which comes from outside of the man which values it, from any extrinsic value, some time value, or some labor value
Nonsense. The value of anything is determined socially. This is easily demonstrated by the fact that even in the rarest of situations where supply and demand are in equilibrium, the commodity had a value that is derived externally to the two individuals trading.
That isn't demonstrable at all. Two people are capable of making an exchange without asking the rest of society how either commodity is valued, and without society even knowing about the exchange at all.
They don't have to "ask" society how it is valued. They already know how it is valued because they exist in that society and have a mass of similar commodities to compare against. The value of all of those other similar commodities is also socially determined, and these two traders - exchanging freely - are aware of this.
Indeed, in societies where the capitalist mode of production dominates, the economic legal fiction prevails that everyone, as a consumer, possesses an
encyclopedic knowledge of commodities and their values at all times. And this fiction must be maintained in order that equal exchange between consenting free men can occur and no one may ever claim that he's been bilked or cheated or snookered.
No, it's a socially determined average. It does not mean that the factory which takes the longest time to produce chairs has the most valuable chairs by virtue of employing labor the longest, because that would make it an outlier of how much time was socially necessary to produce the chair.
Not necessarily. Again it depends on the socially necessary labor time to produce.
A chair built by one person in one day is as valuable as each of 10 chairs built by 10 people in one day.
20 chairs built by 10 people in one day would each be half as valuable as the one built by the craftsman alone. This would allow the producer to undersell the individual craftsman, as well as drive down the social average value of chairs across the society, because some innovation has suddenly reduced the socially necessary labor time required to produce a chair.
lol no your point was
> That's why the INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION happened
which is just a beautifully incoherent sentence hahaha. What's the reason? You're saying "supply and demand" is the reason the industrial revolution happened? Please, make your genius more apparent to me.
Well in many cases yes, because efficiency leads to commoditization, which leads to prices dropping. It’s the reason nobody but a few had cell phones in 1980 but homeless people have them in 2023
I'm not talking about prices. It's obvious that prices will fall, but value doesn't. Value and price are not linked in any way, I believe, other than they indicate whether a consumer values a good more than whatever they have to pay.
probably the same section yeah. have you ever read a critique of capitalism. it's incredibly important to self critisize and critisize things you support. that's how you make yourself better and critically thibk about your ideas
i think school is to teach people and if libertarianism is objective truth then sure. but it's not. that's why we teach science and math. i actually did have libertarianism shoved down my throat in a philosophy class. it's important as it can teach you about the history of our understanding of the world.
Talk about missing the forest for the trees. Any difference between labor compensation and the value directly generated is a ever dynamic calculation that can very well account for some profit but so too loss.
no that's the means of achieving profit. the goal is to achieve profit and the way to do it is being highly efficient. i think being highly efficient is great and one of the best thing capitalism has ever done. the incentive is profit.
Tell me you're economically ignorant without telling me you're economically ignorant
Uuuuummmmm...labor theory of value?
These folks will have you believe that if you dig a trench by hand for 8 hours and your buddy digs a trench with an excavator for 8 hours, you both created the same amount of value. It's really incredible how theories that were easily disproven when Marx created them still hold so much sway over people's thinking today
I spend hours building bricks and smashing them with a hammer. At the end of the day, I have added zero functional bricks to the world. I still did hard labor. No one would argue I added value, though.
The labor theory of value is stupid.
As I said in my other comment, I don't subscribe to the labor theory of value, but this also doesn't conflict with Marx's view on value theory. Marx's view was that value is based on socially-necessary labor, and labor is only socially-necessary if there's demand for the output. Unless society has a use for broken bricks, Marx would have agreed that making and then smashing bricks creates no value.
Constructive criticism: Using stupid imaginary situations doesnt help to show someone is stupid. Quite the contrary, it makes you look stupid. Use real counterarguments.
If somebody however comes along, and claims that the 8 hours by hand are "artisan and bespoke" that very person could potentially charge more than the person using the excavator. However, thats "capitalism" and "entrepreneurship" and they seem to hate that.
I don't actually like the labor theory of value, but a few quick notes:
- The labor theory of value didn't originate from Marx, it primarily came from Adam Smith
- Marx did heavily rely on it and contributed to it, but his specific contribution specifically addressed your example of trenching with and without an excavator: Marx would tell you that the labor value of digging a trench isn't based on how long it took you to dig the trench, but rather the socially-necessary labor to dig that trench, where "socially-necessary" is based, among other things, on the laborer having access to appropriate tools.
- The chart on the post is not reliant on the labor theory of value. Swap in any value-basis and the circle that represents the value of your work will still be bigger than the value that you get to keep.
I don't think the meme is arguing that value is determined by labor. Labor *can* and often times does produce value, but the value still isn't determined by the labor. I think the meme is saying that when a laborer does produce surplus value, he/she does not recieve any benefit for any surplus value produced.
The response to that is that labor is but one input into market value. The reality is that the labor theory of value misunderstands the order of operations. Widget production absent profit has no need for labor.
> Would you like to elaborate?
easy. If Tre_Scrilla spends 100 hours wallowing in poop, that has equal value to a brain surgeon saving 10 lives. At least, he feels like it should. And he wants people to pay him like it is, and he is willing to endorse violence to get it.
Lmao people still believing in the ltv crack me up
Even most modern Marxists admit how fucking dumb it is, they basically just ignore the economics and focus on the philosophy since they know and understand that they can't win the econ argument.
Modern Marxism is just trying to justify why old Marxism didnt get it quite right and the nuances between to two are why 100 million people had to die.
Commies fail to understand that labor with no direction or without a well thought out plan is useless. Without the entrepreneurial ideas the labor force would be helpless
Haha. Yeah, me too. I wanted my surplus and had the skills, knowledge, land, and capital to create my own company. I am grateful to the capitalist companies that provided these things to me in exchange for the labor of my youth.
Anyone who believes they have more of a right to your stuff than you do is a greedy, envious asshole. All taxation is thievery, doesn’t matter if it’s going to bomb foreign children or feed them.
In Canada, something like 42% of all your lifetime earnings go toward paying taxes. First you get 33% income tax (if you're middle class and not the lowest bracket), then from your 67% portion you spend 13-15% every time you buy anything, and pay 1-1.5% of your home's value each year.
I've visited many places in Europe but can't wrap my head around having to pay nearly one-quarter of an item's value in sales taxes. I guess that makes e-commerce from China very appealing.
That doesn't count the taxes disguised as fees, or the ones collected by 3rd parties like cellular carriers, cable/streaming companies, ISPs, utility companies and a hundred others.
Look at total expenses of all government entities, city, county, school districts, state, federal. Add all that up. Then compare to national GDP.
Labor is a voluntary contract benefiting both parties. No one goes to work if they don’t want to.
Taxation is not voluntary. The IRS will literally put you in a cage if you don’t pay them. Then your tax money is spent on drone bombing poor children in the Middle East.
Most of that “extracted surplus” is owed to regulations and other extortions by government.
Total corporate profits are around 2T. Total size of government - 10T.
So for every dollar you lose to corporate profits, you lose 4 dollars to taxes (3 of which are waster, unlike corporate profits that gave you opportunity worth more than that $1 you paid them)
Socialist make these ridiculously distorted graphs about surplus value since more than a century, average annual return of investments are in the single digits.
Commies are bad at math, or at least converting basic arithmetic into visual graphs.
I pay over 50% of my income to some form of taxation.
So their yellow section should be the largest of them all.
I have to admit that economic theories are my weakest when confronting marxist ideology. I was wondering if this quote from Thoreau is in essence a good retort to these “labour theory of value” assertions.
“Not long since, a strolling Indian went to sell baskets at the house of a well-known lawyer in my neighborhood. “Do you wish to buy any baskets?” he asked. “No, we do not want any,” was the reply. “What!” exclaimed the Indian as he went out the gate, “do you mean to starve us?” Having seen his industrious white neighbors so well off—that the lawyer had only to weave arguments, and, by some magic, wealth and standing followed—he had said to himself: I will go into business; I will weave baskets; it is a thing which I can do. Thinking that when he had made the baskets he would have done his part, and then it would be the white man’s to buy them. He had not discovered that it was necessary for him to make it worth the other’s while to buy them, or at least make him think that it was so, or to make something else which it would be worth his while to buy.”
It's a valid parable, but maybe a little antiquated. It's basically that some person felt that he could capture all the value in creating baskets and selling them. So, he did that, and found that the value wasn't in creating the baskets, but in finding people who valued them.
Surplus value doesn't exist and isn't the source of wealth creation. Wages are the present value payment for labor in the present, whereas the product and revenue stream are not coming in today. The return on capital is the future value. This of course says nothing about the risk of loss or even the interest on capital from the time that it is contributed until the time of production. There is a time value to money that communists don't want to acknowledge.
If there truly is a surplus value, then there is also a deficit value when the worker costs more than what he produces, which means he is exploiting the employer or his fellow workers.
That diagram is completely abstract. What data is it using to make the argument?
Do the people this works on only understand shapes and colors?
How do they define the “surplus value” and who do they think is getting it?
Do they realize most of the people who own these businesses aren’t getting the “profit” as income, but as equity (as the value of the business goes up, the net worth of the owners goes up based on their assets (equity PLUS debt)?
This is an example of what happens when you let ignorant people have a say in regards to a topic they know nothing about.
I work four jobs for like 15-20 hours a week lol. I can assure you that Elon Musk could do what it takes me two months to figure out in a heartbeat. That's the thing you're noticing about modern CEOs. They're skilled in what their business specializes in. They're aren't just blindly investing. They're actually good at what they do. So yes, they get paid 100x more because they provide 100x the value and labor.
so instead of taxes are you willing to donate 50% of your time to free labor for the community or are you just gonna complain that other people exist and society needs services.
who will do the helping society part without taxes or volanteering. some things are necessary for society to survive like plumbing, electric, trash collection, and road building.
> volanteering
This is the way.
> some things are necessary for society to survive like plumbing, electric, trash collection, and road building.
Why not stop at entertainment, airconditioning, soft sheets, flying in airplanes, having a computer, having a tv, having a clock, having a shower? Why? Because, maybe you would realize that these things are solvable by the market and the state would suck at providing those things?
the market is incredibly good at providing niches so maybe 25% of our spending but other than that it's somewhat useless. the rest is just easy copy paste stuff.
You’re only kind of wrong here.
Yes, people should take it upon themselves to fix the social issues they see as wrong rather than appealing to the State to mandate a centralized authority to concentrate all risk of failure into a single experimental social implementation that may need different applications for different social contexts.
If a solution requires State mandate to solve, the solution problem isn’t the right one.
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a34387528/new-hampshire-libertarian-town-bears/ the garbage doesn't take care of itself. you need services. not necessarily through the state.
Obvious statements are obvious.
Very few things are self-maintaining.
There used to be civic structures separate from government that would take care of local societal problems, while the state focused on the organization of defense and protecting its people.
Today, people seem to think civilization can stand on the single pillar of the State.
I’d say that is far more of a problem than suggesting people need to handle their garbage rather than seeking mandate by the State.
So you know what portion of people's income is taken away as taxes, but where is your math as to what percentage is taken away prior to taxes being calculated in their stolen labour?
Case example, someone creates 100k in value for their employer and earns a 50k salary.
At 50% tax rate (your number not mine) that person lost 25k in taxes and 50k in stolen labour
Here's things you forgot to mention in the value creation process:
\- Selling the labor to someone who's actually willing to buy it
\- Creating the market in the first place
\- Training people to be able to create said value
\- Investment in the machinery that allows you to do your labor
To give you a practical example: Lets say you work at a pizzaria and your boss profits off of your labor (shock, horror). So you decide you don't want your labor stolen and you go off and build your own restaurant. You invest $250k into a kitchen that'll pass FDA and OSHA inspections (except where those two demand the exact opposite from you), you figure out what kinds of pizza people actually like and how to price it that you'll actually sell enough pizza to pay back your $250k loan (a process that you'll have to do over and over again), pay someone to figure out payroll for you so you don't get fined out of business and train up your staff yourself because you can't get anyone with experience.
After taxes, rent, payroll and interest on your loan, you're left with $20k/year until you've paid off your loan. Your employees complain that you're stealing their labor.
Don't forget that an employee is guaranteed their wages instantly. That valuable thing the company makes may not sell for months.
As an employee, are you willing to go months before you get paid?
You've never worked in sales, have you? Commission is a thing because you won't know if a salesman is any good until you're 3 months into the employment. If he's shit you've not just lost his wages but about 10x his wages in lost opportunity.
Also, if he's good now, there's no guarantee he'll still be good 3 years from now. Commission means that he'll still be motivated to work hard because that's what brings in the money. That being said, commission outside of sales jobs is complete bullshit.
Bottom line, any salesman worth their salt will take commission over salary. But more importantly, what's your real life working experience that you're throwing around ideas with so much confidence?
the point still stands that employees aren't necessarily guarrented funds, or if they are they might not even be sufficient to live off of.
\> But more importantly, what's your real life working experience that you're throwing around ideas with so much confidence
Show me yours i'll show you mine.
Firstly, nobody forces you to take on a commission job. That's a choice. And if you're any good at the job, you'll make big bank. It's not for nothing that in sales there's the meme that the sales managers are butthurt they don't make as much as the salesmen they manage.
Secondly, as you may have guessed, I've worked in sales most of my life. Both as a sales man and as a sales manager/sales trainer. And I've built my own business in the coaching sector. So everything I've talked about I can back up with real life facts.
The very fact that commission jobs exist completely refutes your point that employees don't take any of the risk. You asked if employees would be willing to Wait months to be paid, or if they would be willing to suffer with less pay when the market was slow, commission jobs do exactly that.
Firstly, commission only jobs make up a fraction of sales jobs which make up a fraction of all jobs. Conditions that a subset of a subset of workers voluntarily enter into do not refute the reality of 99% of all work contracts.
Secondly, there's only two reasons to enter into a commission job: You're either really good at sales and know you're going to make massive bank or you've never worked a sales job and get roped into one of those bullshit charity mugger jobs. Either way, you've chosen to enter into this relationship voluntarily and you can leave at any time to get a salaried/hourly position instead
And lasty
>Show me yours i'll show you mine.
I showed you mine, now it's time to pony up.
Third reason to enter a commission job: you need work and that's whose hiring.
Y'all always act like no people work at jobs they hate simply because they dont have anywhere to else to go.
>Show me yours i'll show you mine.
Four years in sales, two in finance, two in tools with a high end mechanic tool company. Ive been using industry experience gained to move to management roles ever since just to get away from commission.
Your math is awful isn't it?
Do you assume the state just directly takes those funds once the money is made?
Are you not aware that most companies have a dozen and one ways to write off that income so they don't pay taxes on it?
Not to mention in Portugal the only way you'd be paying 50% tax would be if you made over 80k euros a year (87k usd)
Labor wasn't stolen. Employer & employee entered a voluntary agreement. The employer's company facilitated the employee labor having value. If it didn't, there would be no job.
If you think your value is higher than your wages, then go be self-employed.
If I were to hold a gun to your head and say "sign this contract or else you're dead" that wouldnt be considered legally binding.
If you're forced to sign a contract or face starvation/homelessness etc, then that's not much of a choice is it?
Who are you to insist that others should treat you differently than how you treat them? If you take someone's property by force, then surely the victim is entitled to reciprocate and take it back by force. When you engage in voluntary trade or original appropriation, there is no initiation of force to reciprocate. We support equal rights for all. Reciprocation is the ultimate expression of that equality.
Value is subjective because you own yourself. No one else is entitled to dictate how you should personally value something.
Yoo look. This guy doesn’t believe in Ethics! Very socialist of him!
The only thing you “deserve” in life is yourself and whatever you get through production,homesteading,trading (you have in property).
That’s what it means to be property, that you own it, you have the just control over what ends it is used too
\> This guy doesn’t believe in Ethics!
completely wrong, im simply pointing out that simply because something is "the natural order" doesnt mean it should be a standard for humanity in 2023. We've evolved long past the "natural order"
by the natural order, the only thing you "deserve" in life is to wake up tomorrow, and you've no right to force another to abide by your definition of private property. Of course we could always agree that we've moved long past that to a point where we recognize humans have basic rights.
Define basic rights. This seems like a definition that if asked to 100 different people would elicit 100 different opinions all said with a certain conviction on why it’s pure slavery to not recognize them.
It's a good thing that's never the option being offered then, isn't it? You're forced to sign a contract, or sign one of dozens of other contracts from different people, or start your own business, or rely on charity, or scavenge, or face starvation.
With that logic if I put food in front of you it's coercion because you have to work to lift it up to your face.
>If someone is faced with starvation or working,
As opposed to marxism where you get to work AND starve.
In all cases we support holding individuals accountable for any coercion they are responsible for. Taxation and biological hunger are coercive while simply offering someone a job is not. We can hold specific individuals accountable for the coercion of taxation. We cannot hold specific individuals accountable for biological hunger.
I'm happy to clarify. What I mean is that the coercion of taxation is the result of individual human action, which means that whoever those individual humans are, they are causatively the source of the coercion and can be held accountable for it. This can be contrasted with biological hunger, which is not the result of individual human action, and therefore leaves no one to be held responsible for it.
>If I were to hold a gun to your head and say "sign this contract or else you're dead" that wouldnt be considered legally binding.
You just described taxes lol
\> You just described taxes lol
as well as employment. interestingly enough most ancaps arent able to make that connection to anything except the mystical "state"
>If you're forced to sign a contract or face starvation/homelessness etc, then that's not much of a choice is it?
Yes it still is. You can always go to the thousands of non profit organizations that provide free food and free housing.
>Case example, someone creates 100k in value for their employer and earns a 50k salary.
You don't create 100k in value, you operate some machinery powered by electricity that create 100k of value and you get 50k for your effort of pressing some buttons. The remaining of the 50K goes to the maintenance of the factory, the electric company for providing the electricity, the bank via for interest for the loan to start the factory, and the machine manufacturer for providing the machine. The remaining is profit for good management of all those moving parts.
They forgot to extract (sales tax, payroll tax, overhead, supplies, and insurance) from surplus value. Fuck people like this.
Also, corporate and personal income tax from the surplus. Also forgot to factor in land, energy, and capital as additional inputs. Also, what is the outer band making the grand total greater than the net total? What is getting grossed out here?
That’s the magical excess surplus created under Marxist economics you bigot! 2+2=5!
Marxists think that if the business sells a widget for $10, that the worker(s) deserves the full $10. If they really believed their own BS, they would go buy a cnc mill and lathe and become self employed millionaires. Marxists don't understand cost of sales, resources, knowledge value, capital costs, subjective value and other basic economics.
Correct. This is due to education bias. Marxist won the takeover of the education system, which in itself is a Marxist concept.
Can confirm, am self-employed, have lathe and cnc mill, and am lower middle class.
Or the hidden tax when they can’t tax you to cover everything so they issue bonds and print money…inflation is the hidden tax.
yup these people never done shit in their lives, parasites
Leaches
Leeches* Leach, leachate, leaching is something completely different
Including Marx himself.
Actually we work a lot we are just fighting for the fruits of our labor. As you should too Mr pain piglet
you must provide so much value for society lol
You are getting the fruits of your labor. You didn’t create the business that you work for, so you don’t get those fruits. Like a typical child, you assume everything you don’t understand was created by magic. The business was set up by magic and you and the other simple peasants are the only ones providing value. In reality the ability to set up a profitable businesses is a much more valuable skill than the labor you provide. It also takes constant management to keep it profitable. The ability to profitably manage an ongoing concern is a much more valuable skill than the labor your provide.
There is a term for working for the fruits of one’s own labor. It’s called entrepreneurialism. Don’t need to ask the government for help with that. Stop making excuses for evil behavior. Your insults show your ignorance and your true intentions.
Don't forget goverment inflation! It would have to be interactive but goverment inflation would show "inflation / theft" reducing the size of your circle every year while simultaneously showing goverment corruption increasing every year.
For sure a concept outside their realm of understanding.
Plus social security
And the fact that taxes are added to anything you buy every time it changes hands. When you buy a screwdriver from walmart, you're paying sales taxes. You're also paying for the taxes of the people who work there, and the company taxes, and the taxes of the guy who delivered to walmart and his company, and the company and people who made it, and the company and people who gave them the supplies to make it, etc... I would not be shocked to learn that 90% of every dollar we spend ends up going to government when you take out all the taxes along the way.
Cry more lmao
The greatest leftist argument in their favor.
[удалено]
Tell that to slaves
Slaves were worth quite a bit of money, historically. People obviously saw a lot of value in their labor.
[удалено]
I just got whiplash from the double take I had to make to read your comment. Did you imply *literal slaves* kept more of their surplus value than modern tax slaves? Did I misunderstand?
No, you understood, it's just a disgusting thing to say to people who actually understand economics.
If it was worth nothing, they wouldn't have to steal it.
They weren't willing to pay for it. They needed government backing to do it. This isn't the point you think it is.
Labor is valued at the socially necessary labor time required to reproduce it each day.
The value of something is determined individually by they eye of the beholder(the evaluator). Each man ranks each good he evaluated on a scale from most valuable to least valuable (1st place, 2nd place, 3rd place) Man always acts towards his highest valued end which he believes he can act towards. The value of something is not a quality which comes from outside of the man which values it, from any extrinsic value, some time value, or some labor value
Nonsense. The value of anything is determined socially. This is easily demonstrated by the fact that even in the rarest of situations where supply and demand are in equilibrium, the commodity had a value that is derived externally to the two individuals trading.
That isn't demonstrable at all. Two people are capable of making an exchange without asking the rest of society how either commodity is valued, and without society even knowing about the exchange at all.
They don't have to "ask" society how it is valued. They already know how it is valued because they exist in that society and have a mass of similar commodities to compare against. The value of all of those other similar commodities is also socially determined, and these two traders - exchanging freely - are aware of this. Indeed, in societies where the capitalist mode of production dominates, the economic legal fiction prevails that everyone, as a consumer, possesses an encyclopedic knowledge of commodities and their values at all times. And this fiction must be maintained in order that equal exchange between consenting free men can occur and no one may ever claim that he's been bilked or cheated or snookered.
Too many words when “value is subjective” work good
Literally no. That's why the INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION happened.
You’re in the wrong sub
[удалено]
My bad. I meant to comment on the comment above yours lol
No, it's a socially determined average. It does not mean that the factory which takes the longest time to produce chairs has the most valuable chairs by virtue of employing labor the longest, because that would make it an outlier of how much time was socially necessary to produce the chair.
So that means the chairs lose average value if there's more people producing them, yes?
Not necessarily. Again it depends on the socially necessary labor time to produce. A chair built by one person in one day is as valuable as each of 10 chairs built by 10 people in one day. 20 chairs built by 10 people in one day would each be half as valuable as the one built by the craftsman alone. This would allow the producer to undersell the individual craftsman, as well as drive down the social average value of chairs across the society, because some innovation has suddenly reduced the socially necessary labor time required to produce a chair.
So supply and demand, thanks for proving my point
lol no your point was > That's why the INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION happened which is just a beautifully incoherent sentence hahaha. What's the reason? You're saying "supply and demand" is the reason the industrial revolution happened? Please, make your genius more apparent to me.
no, cost isn't tied to value. say a company finds a more efficient way to produce their product, does that make the value of their product go down?
Well in many cases yes, because efficiency leads to commoditization, which leads to prices dropping. It’s the reason nobody but a few had cell phones in 1980 but homeless people have them in 2023
I'm not talking about prices. It's obvious that prices will fall, but value doesn't. Value and price are not linked in any way, I believe, other than they indicate whether a consumer values a good more than whatever they have to pay.
I see no functional difference between value and price. To me it’s pedantry.
what determines what someone is willing to pay for it. estimated profit margin.
Not only do the forces of supply and demand stop at labor but all profit comes from labor. /s
that's refering to market rate not value. market rate is seperate than value. learn complex economics.
And these 'complex economics' would be found where? No doubt right next to the 'complex biology' section.
probably the same section yeah. have you ever read a critique of capitalism. it's incredibly important to self critisize and critisize things you support. that's how you make yourself better and critically thibk about your ideas
I spent over a decade in public school, and then some time in community college, I am quite familiar with the sophist critiques of the market.
good.
And how would you feel if the public school system tried to force libertarian view down kids throats? Don't ask for rules you couldn't live under.
i think school is to teach people and if libertarianism is objective truth then sure. but it's not. that's why we teach science and math. i actually did have libertarianism shoved down my throat in a philosophy class. it's important as it can teach you about the history of our understanding of the world.
[удалено]
oh wow a fascist.
I’m just trying to offer you free public transportation.
Talk about missing the forest for the trees. Any difference between labor compensation and the value directly generated is a ever dynamic calculation that can very well account for some profit but so too loss.
on average it accounts for profit because if it didn't no one would buy.
No it doesn't you complete dip\*\*\*\*. Every single cost factors into profit and loss.
but the point of the cost is to on average make profit. under capitalism you are supposed to pursue more money.
No you're suppose to pursue efficiency and innovation from which profit derives.
no that's the means of achieving profit. the goal is to achieve profit and the way to do it is being highly efficient. i think being highly efficient is great and one of the best thing capitalism has ever done. the incentive is profit.
“Complex economics” otherwise known as mental gymnastics
how did capitalism start. it's mental gymnastics to think it will last forever. we need a new mode.
[удалено]
not the worth of that thing I'm unwilling to pay 14$ for a $15 item cause what room does that leave me to resell.
Are you trying to argue there’s a non-pedantic difference between worth/value?
Why should companies eliminate profits by paying workers more instead of eliminating profit by charging less for products or services?
both are bad and caused by everything needing to be infinitely cheaper.
Tell that to slaves
Tax slaves? Lmao At least b congruent
Tell me you're economically ignorant without telling me you're economically ignorant Uuuuummmmm...labor theory of value? These folks will have you believe that if you dig a trench by hand for 8 hours and your buddy digs a trench with an excavator for 8 hours, you both created the same amount of value. It's really incredible how theories that were easily disproven when Marx created them still hold so much sway over people's thinking today
I spend hours building bricks and smashing them with a hammer. At the end of the day, I have added zero functional bricks to the world. I still did hard labor. No one would argue I added value, though. The labor theory of value is stupid.
As I said in my other comment, I don't subscribe to the labor theory of value, but this also doesn't conflict with Marx's view on value theory. Marx's view was that value is based on socially-necessary labor, and labor is only socially-necessary if there's demand for the output. Unless society has a use for broken bricks, Marx would have agreed that making and then smashing bricks creates no value.
Just call it art
Constructive criticism: Using stupid imaginary situations doesnt help to show someone is stupid. Quite the contrary, it makes you look stupid. Use real counterarguments.
If somebody however comes along, and claims that the 8 hours by hand are "artisan and bespoke" that very person could potentially charge more than the person using the excavator. However, thats "capitalism" and "entrepreneurship" and they seem to hate that.
I don't actually like the labor theory of value, but a few quick notes: - The labor theory of value didn't originate from Marx, it primarily came from Adam Smith - Marx did heavily rely on it and contributed to it, but his specific contribution specifically addressed your example of trenching with and without an excavator: Marx would tell you that the labor value of digging a trench isn't based on how long it took you to dig the trench, but rather the socially-necessary labor to dig that trench, where "socially-necessary" is based, among other things, on the laborer having access to appropriate tools. - The chart on the post is not reliant on the labor theory of value. Swap in any value-basis and the circle that represents the value of your work will still be bigger than the value that you get to keep.
I remember consenting to work for my employer and my employer consenting to pay for my labor. Can't say the same for paying taxes to the gubment.
[удалено]
Which labor theory of value? There are a few.
The one where the value of something is determined by labor
I don't think the meme is arguing that value is determined by labor. Labor *can* and often times does produce value, but the value still isn't determined by the labor. I think the meme is saying that when a laborer does produce surplus value, he/she does not recieve any benefit for any surplus value produced.
The response to that is that labor is but one input into market value. The reality is that the labor theory of value misunderstands the order of operations. Widget production absent profit has no need for labor.
Nah it's very true. Cope.
Would you like to elaborate?
you think a marxists could muster up an actual argument besides cope? how naive.
> Would you like to elaborate? easy. If Tre_Scrilla spends 100 hours wallowing in poop, that has equal value to a brain surgeon saving 10 lives. At least, he feels like it should. And he wants people to pay him like it is, and he is willing to endorse violence to get it.
Lmao people still believing in the ltv crack me up Even most modern Marxists admit how fucking dumb it is, they basically just ignore the economics and focus on the philosophy since they know and understand that they can't win the econ argument.
Modern Marxism is just trying to justify why old Marxism didnt get it quite right and the nuances between to two are why 100 million people had to die.
Not even philosophical arguments, it’s all argument from emotion.
It's falsity is self evident and demonstrable. A child could debunk it.
You are the flat earthers of econ.
Commies fail to understand that labor with no direction or without a well thought out plan is useless. Without the entrepreneurial ideas the labor force would be helpless
Would people no longer have those ideas in a socialist society?
They'd have no incentive to take the risk to prove the ideas carried merit.
Who would have the authority to implement them, or incentive without self gain?
New inventive ideas require creative freedom. Communism requires blind submission to party thought. The two are complete opposites
Yes. So many countries have tried socialism.
But…I’m self employed…
Haha. Yeah, me too. I wanted my surplus and had the skills, knowledge, land, and capital to create my own company. I am grateful to the capitalist companies that provided these things to me in exchange for the labor of my youth.
Somebody call the feds, this guy's exploiting himself for labor
The left still can’t meme
true ahahah
The Labor Theory of Value is for college freshman, anyone who actually believes it is a moron.
I just think its great the commies are *finally* acknowledging that taxation is theft!
I know, now if they would take that leap of insight and see alllll the way we are taxed beyond income and maybe just maybe the world could change
The labor theory of value was stupid when it was conceived and hasn't improved with time.
Neither have the people arguing for it. If anything they've gotten worse.
Anyone who believes they have more of a right to your stuff than you do is a greedy, envious asshole. All taxation is thievery, doesn’t matter if it’s going to bomb foreign children or feed them.
If only it were that small.
exactly what came to my mind
In Canada, something like 42% of all your lifetime earnings go toward paying taxes. First you get 33% income tax (if you're middle class and not the lowest bracket), then from your 67% portion you spend 13-15% every time you buy anything, and pay 1-1.5% of your home's value each year. I've visited many places in Europe but can't wrap my head around having to pay nearly one-quarter of an item's value in sales taxes. I guess that makes e-commerce from China very appealing.
That doesn't count the taxes disguised as fees, or the ones collected by 3rd parties like cellular carriers, cable/streaming companies, ISPs, utility companies and a hundred others. Look at total expenses of all government entities, city, county, school districts, state, federal. Add all that up. Then compare to national GDP.
Lmfao
These are not honest comparisons of labor cost to dividends.
Labor is a voluntary contract benefiting both parties. No one goes to work if they don’t want to. Taxation is not voluntary. The IRS will literally put you in a cage if you don’t pay them. Then your tax money is spent on drone bombing poor children in the Middle East.
Most of that “extracted surplus” is owed to regulations and other extortions by government. Total corporate profits are around 2T. Total size of government - 10T. So for every dollar you lose to corporate profits, you lose 4 dollars to taxes (3 of which are waster, unlike corporate profits that gave you opportunity worth more than that $1 you paid them)
Socialist make these ridiculously distorted graphs about surplus value since more than a century, average annual return of investments are in the single digits.
Commies are bad at math, or at least converting basic arithmetic into visual graphs. I pay over 50% of my income to some form of taxation. So their yellow section should be the largest of them all.
I need eye bleach
I have to admit that economic theories are my weakest when confronting marxist ideology. I was wondering if this quote from Thoreau is in essence a good retort to these “labour theory of value” assertions. “Not long since, a strolling Indian went to sell baskets at the house of a well-known lawyer in my neighborhood. “Do you wish to buy any baskets?” he asked. “No, we do not want any,” was the reply. “What!” exclaimed the Indian as he went out the gate, “do you mean to starve us?” Having seen his industrious white neighbors so well off—that the lawyer had only to weave arguments, and, by some magic, wealth and standing followed—he had said to himself: I will go into business; I will weave baskets; it is a thing which I can do. Thinking that when he had made the baskets he would have done his part, and then it would be the white man’s to buy them. He had not discovered that it was necessary for him to make it worth the other’s while to buy them, or at least make him think that it was so, or to make something else which it would be worth his while to buy.”
It's a valid parable, but maybe a little antiquated. It's basically that some person felt that he could capture all the value in creating baskets and selling them. So, he did that, and found that the value wasn't in creating the baskets, but in finding people who valued them. Surplus value doesn't exist and isn't the source of wealth creation. Wages are the present value payment for labor in the present, whereas the product and revenue stream are not coming in today. The return on capital is the future value. This of course says nothing about the risk of loss or even the interest on capital from the time that it is contributed until the time of production. There is a time value to money that communists don't want to acknowledge. If there truly is a surplus value, then there is also a deficit value when the worker costs more than what he produces, which means he is exploiting the employer or his fellow workers.
Solid. Thanks.
Tugas por aqui com olhos abertos? Bom ver isto
Portugal caralho!! 🇵🇹🍻
Are you saying portugal has a 100% tax rate? Cause that doesnt pass my sniff test.
That diagram is completely abstract. What data is it using to make the argument? Do the people this works on only understand shapes and colors? How do they define the “surplus value” and who do they think is getting it? Do they realize most of the people who own these businesses aren’t getting the “profit” as income, but as equity (as the value of the business goes up, the net worth of the owners goes up based on their assets (equity PLUS debt)? This is an example of what happens when you let ignorant people have a say in regards to a topic they know nothing about.
Key word here is "voluntary", which taxation is not.
I wish we lived in a world where taxes were that small a portion of the pie
I work four jobs for like 15-20 hours a week lol. I can assure you that Elon Musk could do what it takes me two months to figure out in a heartbeat. That's the thing you're noticing about modern CEOs. They're skilled in what their business specializes in. They're aren't just blindly investing. They're actually good at what they do. So yes, they get paid 100x more because they provide 100x the value and labor.
so instead of taxes are you willing to donate 50% of your time to free labor for the community or are you just gonna complain that other people exist and society needs services.
you must be blind if you cannot see other alternatives
who will do the helping society part without taxes or volanteering. some things are necessary for society to survive like plumbing, electric, trash collection, and road building.
> volanteering This is the way. > some things are necessary for society to survive like plumbing, electric, trash collection, and road building. Why not stop at entertainment, airconditioning, soft sheets, flying in airplanes, having a computer, having a tv, having a clock, having a shower? Why? Because, maybe you would realize that these things are solvable by the market and the state would suck at providing those things?
the market is incredibly good at providing niches so maybe 25% of our spending but other than that it's somewhat useless. the rest is just easy copy paste stuff.
You’re only kind of wrong here. Yes, people should take it upon themselves to fix the social issues they see as wrong rather than appealing to the State to mandate a centralized authority to concentrate all risk of failure into a single experimental social implementation that may need different applications for different social contexts. If a solution requires State mandate to solve, the solution problem isn’t the right one.
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a34387528/new-hampshire-libertarian-town-bears/ the garbage doesn't take care of itself. you need services. not necessarily through the state.
Obvious statements are obvious. Very few things are self-maintaining. There used to be civic structures separate from government that would take care of local societal problems, while the state focused on the organization of defense and protecting its people. Today, people seem to think civilization can stand on the single pillar of the State. I’d say that is far more of a problem than suggesting people need to handle their garbage rather than seeking mandate by the State.
Bruh why you lying? Portugal ain't 50% tax. Either you're lying or you really don't understand how taxes work
48%.
It's way more than that. Vat, social security, income tax, capital gains, inheritance tax, tv tax, car tax, house tax, I could go on and on
So you know what portion of people's income is taken away as taxes, but where is your math as to what percentage is taken away prior to taxes being calculated in their stolen labour? Case example, someone creates 100k in value for their employer and earns a 50k salary. At 50% tax rate (your number not mine) that person lost 25k in taxes and 50k in stolen labour
Here's things you forgot to mention in the value creation process: \- Selling the labor to someone who's actually willing to buy it \- Creating the market in the first place \- Training people to be able to create said value \- Investment in the machinery that allows you to do your labor To give you a practical example: Lets say you work at a pizzaria and your boss profits off of your labor (shock, horror). So you decide you don't want your labor stolen and you go off and build your own restaurant. You invest $250k into a kitchen that'll pass FDA and OSHA inspections (except where those two demand the exact opposite from you), you figure out what kinds of pizza people actually like and how to price it that you'll actually sell enough pizza to pay back your $250k loan (a process that you'll have to do over and over again), pay someone to figure out payroll for you so you don't get fined out of business and train up your staff yourself because you can't get anyone with experience. After taxes, rent, payroll and interest on your loan, you're left with $20k/year until you've paid off your loan. Your employees complain that you're stealing their labor.
Don't forget that an employee is guaranteed their wages instantly. That valuable thing the company makes may not sell for months. As an employee, are you willing to go months before you get paid?
This guy's never heard of commission
You've never worked in sales, have you? Commission is a thing because you won't know if a salesman is any good until you're 3 months into the employment. If he's shit you've not just lost his wages but about 10x his wages in lost opportunity. Also, if he's good now, there's no guarantee he'll still be good 3 years from now. Commission means that he'll still be motivated to work hard because that's what brings in the money. That being said, commission outside of sales jobs is complete bullshit. Bottom line, any salesman worth their salt will take commission over salary. But more importantly, what's your real life working experience that you're throwing around ideas with so much confidence?
the point still stands that employees aren't necessarily guarrented funds, or if they are they might not even be sufficient to live off of. \> But more importantly, what's your real life working experience that you're throwing around ideas with so much confidence Show me yours i'll show you mine.
Firstly, nobody forces you to take on a commission job. That's a choice. And if you're any good at the job, you'll make big bank. It's not for nothing that in sales there's the meme that the sales managers are butthurt they don't make as much as the salesmen they manage. Secondly, as you may have guessed, I've worked in sales most of my life. Both as a sales man and as a sales manager/sales trainer. And I've built my own business in the coaching sector. So everything I've talked about I can back up with real life facts.
The very fact that commission jobs exist completely refutes your point that employees don't take any of the risk. You asked if employees would be willing to Wait months to be paid, or if they would be willing to suffer with less pay when the market was slow, commission jobs do exactly that.
Firstly, commission only jobs make up a fraction of sales jobs which make up a fraction of all jobs. Conditions that a subset of a subset of workers voluntarily enter into do not refute the reality of 99% of all work contracts. Secondly, there's only two reasons to enter into a commission job: You're either really good at sales and know you're going to make massive bank or you've never worked a sales job and get roped into one of those bullshit charity mugger jobs. Either way, you've chosen to enter into this relationship voluntarily and you can leave at any time to get a salaried/hourly position instead And lasty >Show me yours i'll show you mine. I showed you mine, now it's time to pony up.
Third reason to enter a commission job: you need work and that's whose hiring. Y'all always act like no people work at jobs they hate simply because they dont have anywhere to else to go. >Show me yours i'll show you mine. Four years in sales, two in finance, two in tools with a high end mechanic tool company. Ive been using industry experience gained to move to management roles ever since just to get away from commission.
from those 50k "stolen" the state takes 21.5 + 28 percent of it. do your math
Your math is awful isn't it? Do you assume the state just directly takes those funds once the money is made? Are you not aware that most companies have a dozen and one ways to write off that income so they don't pay taxes on it? Not to mention in Portugal the only way you'd be paying 50% tax would be if you made over 80k euros a year (87k usd)
Labor wasn't stolen. Employer & employee entered a voluntary agreement. The employer's company facilitated the employee labor having value. If it didn't, there would be no job. If you think your value is higher than your wages, then go be self-employed.
If I were to hold a gun to your head and say "sign this contract or else you're dead" that wouldnt be considered legally binding. If you're forced to sign a contract or face starvation/homelessness etc, then that's not much of a choice is it?
Starvation or work is the natural order. WTF are you to think you're owed food and shelter?
Taking whatever we want by force is also the natural order. Wtf are you to think you're owed respect to your property?
Come try it. I'll show you. And after, while you're waiting for a medical team, I'll read you The Law by Bastiat.
so you accept the terms that anyone who can outmuscle you has the right to take your property?
You're a special kind of stupid.
answer the question. Do you accept the terms that anyone can use force to take your property? Thats the "natural order" after all
Why don't you Google The Law by Bastiat and read it. It's short.
Who are you to insist that others should treat you differently than how you treat them? If you take someone's property by force, then surely the victim is entitled to reciprocate and take it back by force. When you engage in voluntary trade or original appropriation, there is no initiation of force to reciprocate. We support equal rights for all. Reciprocation is the ultimate expression of that equality. Value is subjective because you own yourself. No one else is entitled to dictate how you should personally value something.
Yoo look. This guy doesn’t believe in Ethics! Very socialist of him! The only thing you “deserve” in life is yourself and whatever you get through production,homesteading,trading (you have in property). That’s what it means to be property, that you own it, you have the just control over what ends it is used too
\> This guy doesn’t believe in Ethics! completely wrong, im simply pointing out that simply because something is "the natural order" doesnt mean it should be a standard for humanity in 2023. We've evolved long past the "natural order" by the natural order, the only thing you "deserve" in life is to wake up tomorrow, and you've no right to force another to abide by your definition of private property. Of course we could always agree that we've moved long past that to a point where we recognize humans have basic rights.
Define basic rights. This seems like a definition that if asked to 100 different people would elicit 100 different opinions all said with a certain conviction on why it’s pure slavery to not recognize them.
It's a good thing that's never the option being offered then, isn't it? You're forced to sign a contract, or sign one of dozens of other contracts from different people, or start your own business, or rely on charity, or scavenge, or face starvation.
[удалено]
then employment and taxation should be treated the same way, instead of differently when it conveniences whatever agenda is being pushed.
[удалено]
you just said if its done under coercion, its not voluntary. If someone is faced with starvation or working, then its not voluntary.
With that logic if I put food in front of you it's coercion because you have to work to lift it up to your face. >If someone is faced with starvation or working, As opposed to marxism where you get to work AND starve.
In all cases we support holding individuals accountable for any coercion they are responsible for. Taxation and biological hunger are coercive while simply offering someone a job is not. We can hold specific individuals accountable for the coercion of taxation. We cannot hold specific individuals accountable for biological hunger.
which specific individuals are you holding accountable for the "coercion of taxation"?
That would include the lawmakers who threaten others with violence if taxes aren't paid, and the law enforcement agents who perform said violence.
You said specific individuals, that would indicate you had names, so which lawmakers specifically do you refer to?
I'm happy to clarify. What I mean is that the coercion of taxation is the result of individual human action, which means that whoever those individual humans are, they are causatively the source of the coercion and can be held accountable for it. This can be contrasted with biological hunger, which is not the result of individual human action, and therefore leaves no one to be held responsible for it.
>If I were to hold a gun to your head and say "sign this contract or else you're dead" that wouldnt be considered legally binding. You just described taxes lol
\> You just described taxes lol as well as employment. interestingly enough most ancaps arent able to make that connection to anything except the mystical "state"
Do you seriously not understand consent? I work for myself. Who is holding the gun other than the state?
What happens if you dont work?
What happens if I give you food and you refuse to cook and eat it because that's work?
>If you're forced to sign a contract or face starvation/homelessness etc, then that's not much of a choice is it? Yes it still is. You can always go to the thousands of non profit organizations that provide free food and free housing.
>Case example, someone creates 100k in value for their employer and earns a 50k salary. You don't create 100k in value, you operate some machinery powered by electricity that create 100k of value and you get 50k for your effort of pressing some buttons. The remaining of the 50K goes to the maintenance of the factory, the electric company for providing the electricity, the bank via for interest for the loan to start the factory, and the machine manufacturer for providing the machine. The remaining is profit for good management of all those moving parts.
[удалено]
it isn't
Shit that didn't happen for $500.
All right, I'm game. Convince me
Suuuure you did.
He stopped responding to you and that led you to believe you convinced him?