To a first approximation, you work for one hour, you get to consume stuff that requires one hour of work to produce. I don't care if you work your ass off for some time and then retire early or if you work very little or very much as long as your consume at most a proportional amount.
Come on, people have written thousands of pages about economy over centuries, I wrote a few sentences here. Of course there are differences between working conditions, individual abilities, and whatnot, that is why I wrote to a first approximation. You are not really expecting that I say something about every possible aspect and edge case in the comments here?
Let us justify why some high ranking managers deserve to retire wealthy after a couple of years while their employees at the factory floor have to work for the rest of their lives while never coming close to the wealth of their higher management.
I might be wrong, but is the labour theory of work not supposed to explain how value works in the economy and is criticised for not making the right predictions? I am not saying that this is how the economy works, I am saying that this is how it should work, that it would be fair to exchange an hour of work for an hour of work. Whether this is actually realizable, is another question, because there is more to prices than the amount of work spent.
