"One of the most important insights of labor value theory is that what creates economic prosperity is work, not one ever-shrinking national debt. The limit to what the state can do is set by what resources are available. For the social economy, the most important thing is that all available resources (labour, capital, natural resources) are used and used efficiently.¹ With this insight, the Social Democrats can leave the austerity policy and once again become the party for full employment. The illusion that the market, left to its own devices, will create full employment has long since been rejected by reality. Unemployment has been three times higher in the thirty-year period since full employment policy was abandoned in the 1990s compared to what it was during the thirty years of full employment policy that preceded the 1990s.” Read the article here.
But on the other hand, is the labor value theory a bit outdated? Not least because nothing is as subjective as "value"?
And strictly speaking, it is not needed either. It is not needed to realize that we are better off if resources are used than if they are not. Wigforss did not start from any theory of labor values in Are we able to work, http://www.folkrorelser.org/rorelsemapp/dokument/wigforss.html, it went well with common sense.
Wisely
It may be added that the labor theory of value is the theoretical basis for Ricardo's idea of comparative advantage. Since all working hours are worth the same amount, both parties gain from exchanging work with each other, Ricardo said. Even if one digs for ore with a shovel and the other makes industrial robots. That different work gives different results, and different amounts of results, the creator of the labor value theory had no understanding of. Maybe because they lived in the 1700th century when efficiency by our standards was equally low everywhere.