←back to thread

191 points impish9208 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
Workaccount2 ◴[] No.45104393[source]
Hard work never lead to economic gains, working hard at creating value does, and that is still true today. If the adage was true, dragging rocks up a hill 18 hrs a day would make you billionaire.

The knife in the side of the economy is housing costs. If that were to drop by 50% tomorrow, you would find that suddenly tons of people are happy with the pay the receive for the value they create. People forget (or are simply unaware) that each dollar you take off from rent/mortgage is effectively a dollar raise from your work.

replies(7): >>45104533 #>>45104593 #>>45104637 #>>45104691 #>>45104750 #>>45105082 #>>45106194 #
mcntsh ◴[] No.45104533[source]
> working hard at creating value does

"Creating value" is such a subjective phrase. Societal value? Fiscal value?

Someone who drives around your city for 12 hours, rescuing and resuscitating people in life-or-death situations probably provides more societal value than a software engineer who builds CRM features for large social companies but we all know which one gets paid more and who is considered "more successful."

Maybe the problem is exactly that people are rewarded based on this other type of value, and that it is increasingly hard to define it, and be the one to provide it.

replies(2): >>45104647 #>>45104709 #
Spivak ◴[] No.45104709[source]
The parent is pointing out that the labor theory of value is nonsense. How much something is worth is totally unrelated to how hard or how long someone worked on it.
replies(3): >>45104856 #>>45104903 #>>45104932 #
TimorousBestie ◴[] No.45104903[source]
Rejecting the labor theory of value was a choice, not some eternal truth of economics.

There’s no reason a society couldn’t be organized around labor values—other than the fact that such societies (or the movements that would give rise to them) are routinely destroyed or destabilized by one pre-existing superpower or the other.

Capitalist realism, in other words.

replies(1): >>45107668 #
1. Spivak ◴[] No.45107668[source]
You could organize an economy around labor-as-value, at least in terms of how workers are paid and goods are priced, but you have to be extremely diligent that you're directing work towards useful endeavors.

You can't escape that people will evaluate how useful goods are to them. Goods which are priced way lower than their utility will get snapped up, goods priced way higher than their utility will go unsold.