Tom, I never insisted that my interpretation of Marx or any other holy scripture is correct. Ambivalence and apparent inconsistencies are the condition sine qua non of being a holy scripture, hence different interpretations are unavoidable. Scriptures that can be interpreted in only one way are never holy, but I imagine they would make good computer programs.
What is more, I have nothing particular against the LTV or this or that interpretation of it - I think it is a useful analytic concept, but it also has its limitations. That, however, is true of virtually any analytic concept known to the humankind.
The reason I picked up the LTV trope is that, in addition to giving me an opportunity to voice my nominalist leanings, it creates an opportunity to address a relevant political issue - what is exploitation or what is fair wage? Many on this list are ready to defend the working class from "exploitation" - but judging by the consumption patterns of the US working class - gas guzzling SUVs $50k a piece, suburban residences whose maintenance costs alone exceed the cost of living in many parts of the world, wasteful and expensive consumption - guns, gadgets, football, NASCAR, RVs, Disneyland vacations etc. - one may thing that these folks are grossly overpaid rather than exploited, especially vis a vis consumption patterns of 90 or percent of world population and what can be sustained on the global scale.
So unless we develop a different concept of exploitation, one that does not depend on the notion of the surplus transfer, we are in a rather weak position. We either have to accept that US working class deserves more than people elsewhere in the world, or agree with the employers that they are overpaid. Neither one is a good choice. Yet, I do not think that the left has any good alternative to this dilemma.
Wojtek