How would labour be valued?

The basic idea is that we break down each labor type to unskilled labor depending on the average time it takes to become skilled in each job. Then people get vouchers according to their unskilled labor time on the job.

Organize a tribe then work your way up from there.

How is labour valued in a tribal setting? You take more than you give and you stand to lose the protection that living in numbers provides.

But is there a burden on giving more than you take?

Standardization and industrialization makes the product of Worker A and the product of Worker B indistinguishable. One widget is the same as another widget. The inequality evaporates under mass production.

so how do you reward the overperforming worker specifically? >Because you cannot give them more resources than the underperforming worker without initiating some system that will lead to the creation of an upper class again, right?
Marxists don't care about equality, reread . Of that is too complicated, en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_each_according_to_his_contribution

Again, Marxists don't care about equality. But to entertain this, understand that quality control doesn't just dissappear under socialism. Both workers still have to to be above or within a certain standard as in any industry and a manufactured product must be within proper tolerances to be accepted. If a worker goes beyond what is required and proves himself as such, he can be rewarded either by recognition or resources. The USSR pre-Khrushchev did as such en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stakhanovite_movement

Fuck, just realized how much I messed up that formating. You get what I was saying.

Look, if you didn't know what the LTV is you should have just said so, and I would have explained it more to you.
And, looking at this thread, a lot of you need to have this explained to you.
If in an average hour, 300 watches are made of an average quality, then the worker should receive an hour as payment. If, in an hour, 300 watches are made of below average quality, the worker should recieve less than an hour of labor.
These values would have to be determined on an "individual" scale.

This is obtuse and bad writing, and it is a clear misinterpretation of what Marx wrote there.

Marxists don't though, "equality" is a nebulous and ultimately liberal concept.
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/letters/75_03_18.htm

I might be an absolute brainlet but I don't get this
what the fuck is he even saying? that different people are not equal in terms of labour quantity and quality but the worth of their labour should still be measured in labour time?

I always thought Marx was shit at writting/explaining, or maybe it's just difficult to translate 150 years old german texts, I don't know.

You probably are stumped because you suspect there must be something particularly clever or creative in that quote, but there really isn't. The good side is that it looks really workable. The hypothetical society in the following is the imagined communist one, just arising out of capitalism (as it existed back then).
Intensity: Alice and Bob work the same physical job at the same place and work the same amount of hours, have the same reliability and so on, but one aspect is different: Alice only works at 3/4 the speed of Bob. Then, Alice only has only a right to 3/4 of the reward of Bob.
Duration: Bob and Carl work the same job at the same reliability and speed, but Carl works a few more hours than Bob, 20 % longer, so he gets more reward. Alice gets 75 % of what Bob gets, Carl gets 120 %.

(When capitalism apologists talk about incentives, these distinctions are their go-to examples. But it's silly to bring up these in defense of capitalism, because these distinctions also existed in the GDR etc. and also with only this stuff you never get to somebody having ten times the salary of another person. It's a non sequitur to talk about these distinctions as if they could justify passive income from being a landlord.)

Is this as good as it can get? Marx goes on that people have different needs:
Income strictly according to job performance wouldn't help with that. He expected that early post-capitalist society would largely, but not completely, operate on the principle to each according to contribution (it's not completely that way, since he mentioned deductions), and as society and technology develop more, the part of income that is distributed according to need will grow.

yeah but those examples are very simple, what about services? what about office workers? how do you measure the average amount of time required to give a massage?
or how do you measure the average time spent on each person's contribution to something that requires several people to produce?