>>12734387>Value is ultimately subjective so arbitrarily putting labour at the centre of your conception of value as a /biz/iness man would only get in the way of a good price.>The price of something is an agreement between two individuals after all and is only constrained by supply, really.So in the most simple terms possible when it comes to a paper business: a piece of paper costs 1 penny. If I wanted to sell you a piece of paper, it would cost a penny. Now, a worker turns the piece of paper into a paper crane that is now $1 (one dollar). Therefore, the labor was worth $0.99 cents. However, since you put forth the costs of the materials (paper) and risked your capital (initial investment of the paper) then you are able to set the wage (let's say, 10 cents for the worker per crane) and receive the surplus value (the remaining 90 cents the worker didn't get).
Now, in your example you emphasize on the agreement of the cost of labor between two individuals, which is true. However, with field testing you can calculate the minimum amount to pay workers and leave them satisfied, with you keeping the surplus value of their labor.
>Labour does confer some value on objects but to what extant isn't obvious and it's clear that it doesn't confer a concrete amount of positive value because value can always be manipulated, or scaled to take a term from maths, by the subjective judgments of an (or multiple) individuals. Supply, however, cannot.Just because it isn't "obvious" doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Just because the supply cannot be manipulated doesn't mean the capitalist doesn't take the surplus value of your labor. And I do agree on your assessment on the value of labor can be manipulated, but it's on the capitalists who dictate what the workers get paid out of the surplus profit, not the workers.
I literally use labor value to manage a multi million dollar painting business.
