>>2216547>>2216566This is unrelated to what I was saying, because I didn't mention marketing. What I was saying is that despite having the same function and quality, the other good was prefered over the other solely on subjective criterias. The price of the favoured good must be higher than the other, because people are more willing to pay for the stylish good because of their subjective valuation of it.
>>2216553Again, you're deviating from my example. This is an abstract example, of course in real life the other firm would try to reproduce the success of their competitor. But this merely highlights the fact that subjective preferences were the factor at play behind the pricing of the good in the first place, not the labor incorporated in it.
>>2216585>Of course it seems that way because it's unfalsifiable. It doesn't attempt to predict or explain anything in any way that could be scientifically confirmed or denied.Actually, stv can be empirically verified. In industrial economics/economic consulting it is common to study elasticities of demand for a given good. It can be verified that an increase in price lead to a decrease in demand, this is subjective value theory in practice.
On another note…
I think there is indeed a correlation between average total labour required to produce a good and its price. I think the reason behind this is that unskilled labor is substitutable and the cost of unskilled labor will converge to a common value through industries. Therefore, the more a product requires "unskilled" labor, the more likely its price will converge to its "labor content".