According to Wikipedia, the core reason labor inputs don't equal prices is, in effect, rental rates on capital: value should only equal price (under the curious sort of conditions in which value is supposed to equal price) if the depreciation rate h and rental rate r sum to unity. r is treated as exogenously determined, such that h+r=1 should only occur by chance.
This exogeneity seems peculiar. In the hunting example, with perfectly circulating capital, it seems obvious enough that if r>0 entrepreneurs should overfletch and rent out arrows until r=0. (Anyone who rents instead of self-fletching, at r>1, is a chump.) Likewise it seems that for any 0<h<1 then the capital in question should be overproduced (or underproduced) until the entrepreneurial hunters see that the expected lifetime payoff of the marginal hour producing that input equals the next-best alternative, which should occur at r = 1 - h. (If an input is to be used twice, then...) This all unrealistically assumes an intertemporal equilibrium with no barriers to entry, no supply shocks, &c. - the deviations from which no one denies, but whose effects should be neutral (for the sorts of phenomena for which value theory is marshaled to explain.)
So either a) Wikipedia is misrepresenting the issue, b) I'm making some glaring logical error, or c) I am the smartest person in the world. (c) seems rather less probable than the alternatives. If (a), what's a better summary? If (b), what embarrassing thing am I doing wrong?