Tryna understand the LTV. I get that only labor creates value, but how do you figure the indirect labor of managing the workers? Whether it’s managed by the state directly or private citizens or elected ppl or whatever, you still need people to manage the people directly adding value, right? so how do you know how much value those people add? Maybe this is an incoherent question, idk. Linking me a thing to read is fine but i’m not gonna read more than ~15 pages b/c i think it’s a fairly simple question.
Managers provide a type of needed labor as well. However, this position is incorrectly tied to social status, wealth, and power which changes the relationship from being equitable to hierarchical.
There is lot's of manager hate in here, and it was rightfully explained why most managers do bullshit jobs. However, that wasn't the question. In a socialist society, there would be way fewer managers. Especially no "Senior Global Marketing Manager FMG". All of these jobs wouldn't exsist in socialism. But the workers would come up with some kind of chain of command and/or administoral jobs. They would vote on what the manager has to decide and what he would earn for it. Maybe they would decide they have to earn more than a worker because they have to make many decisions. They could also decide they should earn less, since they don't do manual labor. Who knows. Managers don't own means of production, they are part of the proletatiat anyway.
They would vote on what the manager has to decide and what he would earn for it. Maybe they would decide they have to earn more than a worker because they have to make many decisions.
This is what Mondragon currently does, from what I understand. I believe they have some system of elections for the individual companies and collectively decide on pay for different roles. There's a company wide rule, however, that the pay ratio of highest paid to lowest paid worker cannot be greater than 8:1.
I think there are certain types of work that require more management than others. Like I have never had a manager at a retail job that I felt actually provided some benefit to the job, usually they just acted as snitches or productivity wardens. However on work sites that are a lot more technical and potentially hazardous (mills, factories, wells, etc.) it is very important to have someone who coordinates the work crew and organizes the project. I imagine in a socialist economy managers would be voted from among the experienced workers and held accountable for their decisions. I don't think there would necessarily be fewer managers, but the faux manager that really just acts as a snitch for corporate would certainly disappear.
I always saw management as something that should be given to people who aren't as physically abled but still capable of working.
To expand on your original question: the total cost of is the sum of all of the workers labor hours since all workers incentives are aligned. The emphasis is on the equality of all workers rather than the efficiency of production so it doesn't make a lot of sense to evaluate individual contributions.
Many managers are like police, where they labor they perform doesn't directly create any value but serves to preserve and maintain the existing relationships of production. However, some managers do perform useful labor, like helping regular service employees on the line directly or performing an administrative role by managing resources between departments. All value in a firm is produced collectively, even if different individual members of a firm suffer under different rates of exploitation. Because the rate of exploitation on a manager is generally less, and they often at least partially must perform as a part of their job 'unproductive labor' of disciplining and protecting the relations of production, they will produce less 'value' than the least productive highly exploited employee. At least imo. But when you try to talk Marxist economics in terms of a general undefined 'value' the whole thing is confusing. Check out Cockshott's how the world works and you can see the LTV implemented against real quantitative units of measurement, like hours and calories.
300 pages
not at my library
$30+ online
:yes-honey-left:
if there’s somewhere i can read it for free online then i’ll check it out but otherwise i don’t think i can
but thanks for the answer though! v informative
Managers are intended to streamline and accelerate the production process through various means. Most overtly, by cracking the whip over the workers.
I can't make coats if someone doesn't bring me linnen. So we do need someone to do that. They just don't need to get paid more and be in charge of if my shirt is tucked in or not.
To give some examples... managers COULD do the following that would help to create value...
Make sure that all workers take breaks, eat, drink water, use bathroom.
Ensure all needed materials for the workers are available before they are needed.
Assist workers who need to take leave for personal reasons, medicals reasons, family reasons, etc. In the sense that there may need to be paperwork filled out for some reason. Also, being responsible for either 1) finding temp replacement worker or 2) alerting the rest of the workers to the change in labor available and discussing how to change the day's work flow to adjust.
Be second tier trouble shooting when there is a problem that will affect work flow. When unable to successfully troubleshoot issue, follow established procedures in finding higher level troubleshooting or scheduling maintenance techs to begin repairs. Making adjustments to work flow or declaring a full work stoppage depending on issue.
Coordinating training and recertifications if any are needed.
Assist clearing up disputes between employees, hopefully in a neutral arbiter role.
It's supposed to be just like one of the workers on secretary duty
The LTV is the one area I don't agree with Marx. A product or service value isn't set it's creation, but at the time it goes to market. Thus value must be imparted by the willingness for individuals to trade not to produce. I think that there's some misunderstanding that between product costs and operating costs.
