> As the Wikipedia article states, the labour theory of value (LTV) was replaced by the theory of marginal utility in mainstream economics due to its major inconsistencies.

"Mainstream economics" is doing a lot of heavy lifting. It didn't "replace" LTV. Marginal utility is simply an an ideological rejection of it with the confusion of price vs value that ignores class exploitation. The proponents of this were the gensis of the so-called "Austrian school" [1] and thus the fathers of neoliberalism [2].

> So, are you saying that the employees were exploited in some way?

Yes, objectively, as measured by profit. The counterargument is that many were well-paid compared to their non-tech colleagues. While true, they still created way more value than what they were paid.

> I could give you examples of how value is created without any work at all.

I'm all ears.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_school_of_economics

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

▲

taffer 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> > I could give you examples of how value is created without any work at all.

> I'm all ears.

Ageing whisky.

	▲	blocko 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		There's a great deal of labor involved in building+preparing casks, storing them, monitoring, maintaining the temp/humidity of a space. Additionally, a good chunk of the price of aged whisky is just due to the fact that the product is constantly evaporating and you're getting a lower yield on the same initial input. Price increase != value created
	▲	overfeed 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Some laboror has to cask it first.

▲

taffer 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> "Mainstream economics" is doing a lot of heavy lifting.

As is "mainstream medicine" or "mainstream climate science". If you don't trust mainstream science, you must be either extremely smart or just delusional.

	▲	_DeadFred_ 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Soft sciences are not at all the same thing as hard science.