However, do not ever get taken in that Marx was correct about the "Labor Theory of Value." It was then, and is now, total BS.
"The labor theory of value, even if we could grant it to be valid for every other commodity, can never be applied to the commodity labor, for this would imply that workmen, like machines, are being produced according to rational cost calculations. Since they are not, there is no warrant for assuming that the value of labor power will be proportional to the man-hours that enter into its “production.”
Schumpeter - Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy.
The labor theory of value is the underpinnings of Marxist theory. It's basically the proposition that it is only through labor that a commodity has value.
There are all sorts of problems with it. There are things that have man-hours put into them that are valueless (one could think of an example of modern art), or that have intrinsic worth without labor input.
Still, this labor theory of value leads him to have the conclusion that a laborer not paid the TRUE value of his wages. Marx thinks you should be paid not for the value of your present labor, but the uncountable hours of work that went into making you the worker you were prior to that moment. Imagine being paid a wage not for the 25 widgets you produce an hour, but a wage that acknowledges that it took a lot of money and time for you to be an educated human being capable of making 25 widgets and hour.
Again, there are all sorts of problems with this. For starters, not all labor is of equal value. It's not some giant pool. Skilled labor is worth more, and there are bargaining issues between employee and employer.
Marx’s labor-quantity values are intended to serve as tools by which to display the division of total social income into labor income and capital income, that is, to show that you're being exploited by the capitalist class by capitalists not paying you enough.
Interesting point on the uncoupled nature of supply (population) and demand (positions) but I think I disagree. Which field any given laborer seeks employment is semi-elastic, for example machine shop welders might switch to underwater welding if a large demand was put on the naval/shipbuilding industry. Or a huffpost writer might finally take that coding bootcamp when they see the $200,000/year job offers.
So my point is just that while human population isn’t directly tied to labor demand, you could make the case that “populace trained for a position” is, atleast a lot more directly.
On topic, I heard that a SoS’er (Engels, who married into the Rothschildren) was the real driving force behind Marx’s theories, never really confirmed much about that though just because I’ve never seen much reason to dive deep into the origin of the commies.
Marx was anti-consumerist and had good things to say about the "paradox of thrift."
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/paradox-of-thrift.asp
However, do not ever get taken in that Marx was correct about the "Labor Theory of Value." It was then, and is now, total BS.
"The labor theory of value, even if we could grant it to be valid for every other commodity, can never be applied to the commodity labor, for this would imply that workmen, like machines, are being produced according to rational cost calculations. Since they are not, there is no warrant for assuming that the value of labor power will be proportional to the man-hours that enter into its “production.”
The labor theory of value is the underpinnings of Marxist theory. It's basically the proposition that it is only through labor that a commodity has value.
There are all sorts of problems with it. There are things that have man-hours put into them that are valueless (one could think of an example of modern art), or that have intrinsic worth without labor input.
Still, this labor theory of value leads him to have the conclusion that a laborer not paid the TRUE value of his wages. Marx thinks you should be paid not for the value of your present labor, but the uncountable hours of work that went into making you the worker you were prior to that moment. Imagine being paid a wage not for the 25 widgets you produce an hour, but a wage that acknowledges that it took a lot of money and time for you to be an educated human being capable of making 25 widgets and hour.
Again, there are all sorts of problems with this. For starters, not all labor is of equal value. It's not some giant pool. Skilled labor is worth more, and there are bargaining issues between employee and employer.
Marx’s labor-quantity values are intended to serve as tools by which to display the division of total social income into labor income and capital income, that is, to show that you're being exploited by the capitalist class by capitalists not paying you enough.
My wage is based partly on how long it took to learn and get good at all this stuff.
Interesting point on the uncoupled nature of supply (population) and demand (positions) but I think I disagree. Which field any given laborer seeks employment is semi-elastic, for example machine shop welders might switch to underwater welding if a large demand was put on the naval/shipbuilding industry. Or a huffpost writer might finally take that coding bootcamp when they see the $200,000/year job offers.
So my point is just that while human population isn’t directly tied to labor demand, you could make the case that “populace trained for a position” is, atleast a lot more directly.
On topic, I heard that a SoS’er (Engels, who married into the Rothschildren) was the real driving force behind Marx’s theories, never really confirmed much about that though just because I’ve never seen much reason to dive deep into the origin of the commies.