Is there a big difference between the two in a free market?
How exactly are you measuring what you're worth?
Let's imagine there is no minimum wage in America. Now let's say that workers in America demand $10/hour and African workers ask for $2/hour for the exact same job. What's the correct value for that labor? It's a non-sensical question.
You could say it's the minimum value at $2. But then some other worker asks for $1. Did you make a mistake? Was it not actually worth $2 the whole time?
If they are inherently subjective, why are you claiming we're not paid what we're worth? This statement is meaningless, isn't it?
> It kinda/sorta works, but it also kinda doesn't
In what way it doesn't work? Clearly it has more utility than other attempts at measuring value. I can agree it's not perfect (nothing is), but that's very different from not working.
> let's say that workers in America demand $10/hour and African workers ask for $2/hour for the exact same job. What's the correct value for that labor?
The correct value is whatever someone is paying for that labor on a free market.
> You could say it's the minimum value at $2. But then some other worker asks for $1. Did you make a mistake?
The only mistake is treating value as inherent and static.
When an amazon warehouse worker has to pee in bottles to meet a quota do you think the worker and amazon came to a fair agreement? Or perhaps amazon had more bargaining power.
We are payed what the company can get away with.
It’s about power, not value. Value is much less of a factor than people like to think.
Same goes for people who are payed a lot (like CEOs). Sure they have impact on the organization, but they also have power.