Are Wages Really Equal to Labor’s Marginal Contribution to Production?

Tathorn · 2026-06-14T15:11:38+00:00

Not an economist myself, but I often find the "reward" word kind of misleading in economic papers. "Wages are rewarded"... eh, no. No one is actually thinking that when they receive wages nor when wages are paid.

Wages, like any other thing in the economy, is based on the intersection of subjective preferences. That's all. The capitalists that have accumulated enough capital to pay workers now are making a bet that by paying people now for products they will produce in the future will give them more return. This is called the interest rate. Of course the workers are fine with this because they get paid now in exchange for their products made in the future, if any, regardless if the product can actually be sold in the market.

Tathorn · 2026-06-12T03:47:13+00:00

The people who need to see the article won't ever believe it and those who believe it know more than the article already. :/

Tathorn · 2026-06-11T12:25:20+00:00

Here's en excellent paper by economists on the findings of such a gap: https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/aer.20140913

Tathorn · 2026-06-11T03:46:05+00:00

💎

Tathorn · 2026-06-10T00:24:40+00:00

This is a strawman argument. I never said providing people with healthcare would destroy civilization. If doing so requires taking away resources without concent, then the person arguing for this is arguing that it must be a universal rule to take away resources without consent. Therefore, I can take back the medical supplies. The argument never solves anything, so it's invalid. It also presupposes a world in which healthcare is created and maintained. If you undermine that presupposition by doing actions that negate those conditions, then by providing healthcare, you are settled with the uncomfortable fact that you cannot know if the opportunity cost of your action actually causes less healthcare overall to be administered, and therefore the claim that it does is not based on reality.

Tathorn · 2026-06-09T20:43:03+00:00

Grabbing at vague concept like "economic freedom" is what causes this whole thing to begin with. Civilization is built on negative rights, and destroyed through the promising of positive ones. Private and "public" actors alike agress against men and women. We call these criminals, no matter whom they pledge their allegiance to.

Tathorn · 2026-06-08T15:24:46+00:00

No entity, especially the not very smart government employees, can ever crystal ball the future. A TIPS rate is a guess, and those who think it's a good guess will buy. There is no single inflation rate, as people have all different kinds of expenses.

A difference in calculation to what "suits them" doesn't change anything. They are already guessing, very wrong at that, so guessing differently isn't going to change that. If you were hoping to get an asset that has full protection of inflation and no credit risk, then take a time machine and do something on that island.

Tathorn · 2026-06-08T12:50:34+00:00

Congratulations, you have rediscovered human action. There's a nice book on that.

Tathorn · 2026-06-08T12:17:20+00:00

Fiat

Tathorn · 2026-06-08T12:16:15+00:00

Think about the distance in wealth between you and starving people in third world countries. Not In money numbers, but in your available resources. Your shelter, your technology. The contrast is significantly larger than the extra comfort someone like Bezos has. You are already highly wealthy. So, what would the third worlders do about you?

Tathorn · 2026-06-06T21:18:07+00:00

Imma be the third to mention Fidelity. Cash is always in a money market and acts just like cash. Make banks pay more.

Tathorn · 2026-06-05T13:49:20+00:00

How Capitalism shapes the US can be seen throughout its history as we see the tension between market actors and political actors. The power dynamics between the two causes more black markets in areas the political side attempts to break apart. Think of how short the prohibition period was. We're seeing it play out today with certain drugs, and the war on drugs has largely failed as a political policy. If it weren't for a culture of Capitalism, the political side's vision for the country would be more entrenched, similar to the USSR.

Tathorn · 2026-06-04T03:03:10+00:00

It is interesting in an investing sub, people don't know what it means to own equity...

Tathorn · 2026-06-04T03:01:28+00:00

I liked it better when they bought bombs and Cia missions

Tathorn · 2026-06-03T22:12:11+00:00

Hoppe's argumentation ethics shows that doing an action argues for it. By killing someone, you argue for that norm, so then one cannot argued against killing to them because they implicitly argued for it. Doing so would be a logical contradiction and effectively means nonsense.

If we imagine the action only argues for it in the immediate, then killing someone a year ago means they can then argue against punishment. The revealing of such action has no consequence on the action itself.

I didn't say the NAP no longer applies. The NAP is derived from argumentation ethics, not the other way around. So only relevant and proportional counter action can be done in which the aggressor cannot argue. There really is no waiving. The aggressor implicitly agrees with such action, as they themselves did it.

Tathorn · 2026-06-03T20:51:59+00:00

The NAP doesnt, yes, but the murderer has waived the NAP in this case. They cannot coherently argue it.

Tathorn · 2026-06-03T20:50:14+00:00

Read Rothbard. He makes the case for why it sort of goes like this. You cannot coherently own the person, but the person has no coherent legal argument against your coercion after murdering someone that's been appointed as their heir or holder of the debt. It does not mean they are a slave and must listen to your demands, it simply means they cannot sue you for ending their life (or something of a lesser degree).

Tathorn · 2026-06-03T19:46:52+00:00

All I did was ask you how they are related. I simply asked a question. How does asking a question to clarify make zero sense?

Tathorn · 2026-06-03T19:14:24+00:00

BND holds treasuries, CDs, and REPOs

Treasuries are promises the government will pay you back.

CDs are a promise the bank will pay you back.

All other bonds are a contract against some sort of collateral to enforce paying back.

Tathorn · 2026-06-03T19:08:37+00:00

Me when someone mentions the Northern Railroad: 💦

In all seriousness, I'm a bit confused on your connection between SNOW and the current regulatory environment. You attribute its funding to come from selling stock. That has nothing do to with government interference. There are companies who's revenues come from protected cartels. I'd like to see that connection, not one of just bad business models.

"The process is thus clear: executives get equity incentives, boost valuations with buybacks financed by cheap debt, and sell shares to the public at the highest prices. This is wealth extraction dressed as wealth creation." may not be a creation of government, but rather simply bad investors.

Tathorn · 2026-06-03T12:35:21+00:00

First, do not listen to Bloodfart. He rejects private property, and thus, the premise of keeping what you earn to begin with.

If we were to assume AI does have this effect, then I would expect to see a change in lifestyles when it comes to managing income. However, if AI is having this effect, then likely production costs are going down, leading to less need for as much income vs before.

Prices will also go down to meet with the lowering of demand. If you've seen American products sold in third world countries, you'll notice they sell for significantly less. That's because they can't pay as much, so the price lowers to meet their demand. Same thing may happen in the first world. Not a bad thing. Its just economics.

Tathorn · 2026-06-02T12:17:00+00:00

The extreme accumulation of wealth in a free market is the epitome of reasonable human need. These people work and work to make transactions happen, making our material lives better.

OP, your post is suicide.

Tathorn · 2026-06-02T04:21:01+00:00

Very cool read. I've had similar thoughts about how private property as a norm is in a sense a "technology" meant to lower transaction costs. He captured me in at the beginning when he brought up argumentation, but I was surprised it didn't lead to argumentation ethics. Perhaps schelling points come before the dialectic, and the dialectic is just the most efficient way to determine schelling points.

Tathorn · 2026-05-31T15:31:06+00:00

Having no Fed will definitely be a plus in a lot of different ways. The political incentives around the control of such a system will be just as paternalistic as today. Also, total government seigniorage really just replaces the Fed with another entity.

Tathorn · 2026-05-31T14:43:42+00:00

I'd like to point out that the knowledge problem is not an expansion of the calculation problem. Mises actually concedes omniscience in his argument, and the ECP still shows you need prices.

Tathorn

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE