• Robert7301201@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yes, the image is correct, but I think theUnlikely was refering to the text “Capitalism exists by selling the value you produce for less than your labor costs.”

    It’s backwards, it should be the value you (the laborer) produce is sold for more than than your labor costs.

    • rockSlayer@lemmy.worldOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      ok, yea now I can understand how that sentence could be confusing. It’s technically correct, but written kinda backwards as people would normally understand it

      • jarfil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        No, it’s not correct in any way:

        “Capitalism exists by selling the value you produce for less than your labor costs.”

        • you produce the value
        • capitalism pays your labor costs for the value
        • capitalism sells the value for… more, never less
        • theUnlikely@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

        • Maeve@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

            • Maeve@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

              • theUnlikely@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

                • Killing_Spark@feddit.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  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.

                  • fkn@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    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.

          • hikaru755@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            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)

          • jarfil@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            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.