The neoclassical point of view is worth considering, but just like the much more scrutinized (by modern economists) labour theory of value, it has its fair share of criticisms from its Ricardian/Marxian proponents. A Marxian economist would say that the capacity to work, i.e labour-power, is (more or less, subject to fluctuation) is the value which when reflected in the price-form is the market price, but labour-power is not equal to labour, rather the use-value of labour-power is labour itself. The Marxian economist would say there are good reasons to believe that, either through a proof of the labour theory of value (though not necessarily a proof in the way of British positivism represented by Ricardo and J.S. Mill), a criticism of alternative models (neoclassical or Sraffian), empirical work on the correspondance between values and prices (such as Shaikh and Tonak's work) or explanation of the dual character of labour (as concrete and abstract) which reflects the essence which makes its way to appearance in surface phenomena (prices).
I don't mean to be a proponent of that view (at least not in this comment) but that might be where the parent comment is coming from.
I don't mean to be a proponent of that view (at least not in this comment) but that might be where the parent comment is coming from.