Capitalism exists by selling the value you produce for less than your labor costs ==> Capitalism exists by selling the value you produce for less than your labor costs [the capitalist/employer].
I’m trying really hard to understand since you seem so sure. But $2000 is more than both $1000 and $500. I’m unable to see how it could be considered less.
Not OP but I think what they are saying is: Your labor is effectively worth the end-price of the product, e.g. the $2000 but you are selling your labor for less than that e.g. $500.
It’s a very weird phrasing, most people do not look at labor as something being sold (even if it is a good way of thinking about it imo). It could just be that they are trying to wiggle out of a misunderstanding.
If the sentence were correct, your employer would sell whatever you produce for less than what they are paying you for it. E.g. they pay you 20 for one hour of work, in which you produce one product, which they then sell for 15. Obviously they would be making a loss in that situation on every single product sold, so no business would ever do that (except in special cases like loss leaders or limited promotions, of course, but we’re talking about the general case here)
If you still don’t see it, then no offense, but we’re coming into “what weights more, a pound of rocks or a pound of feathers” territory, which I don’t think I can explain through here.
No, it’s not correct in any way:
“Capitalism exists by selling the value you produce for less than your labor costs.”
Thanks, I thought I was losing my mind. I spent way too long rereading that sentence and wondering why no one had commented on it yet.
Capitalism exists by selling the value you produce for less than your labor costs ==> Capitalism exists by selling the value you produce for less than your labor costs [the capitalist/employer].
It’s technically correct, but unclear.
Can you give an example with some numbers? I’m still not seeing it.
Say you produce a $thousand fmv worth of x. Your capitalist employer sells x for $2000. They sold x for less than what they pay you, $500 worth of x.
I’m trying really hard to understand since you seem so sure. But $2000 is more than both $1000 and $500. I’m unable to see how it could be considered less.
Not OP but I think what they are saying is: Your labor is effectively worth the end-price of the product, e.g. the $2000 but you are selling your labor for less than that e.g. $500.
It’s a very weird phrasing, most people do not look at labor as something being sold (even if it is a good way of thinking about it imo). It could just be that they are trying to wiggle out of a misunderstanding.
People don’t think of labor as being sold? What are wages then? It’s literally the price of your labor?
I’ve never even considered that people don’t think of labor as something being sold.
ok, can you explain the contradiction? I don’t see it, at all.
If the sentence were correct, your employer would sell whatever you produce for less than what they are paying you for it. E.g. they pay you 20 for one hour of work, in which you produce one product, which they then sell for 15. Obviously they would be making a loss in that situation on every single product sold, so no business would ever do that (except in special cases like loss leaders or limited promotions, of course, but we’re talking about the general case here)
Just explained it, step by step.
If you still don’t see it, then no offense, but we’re coming into “what weights more, a pound of rocks or a pound of feathers” territory, which I don’t think I can explain through here.