Division of labor by the market does not result in a fair distribution of value.

A case in point

Mr. P uses the labor of 1 to make part A and sells it at 2 in the market.

Mr. Q buys part A at market for 2, uses 1 labor to make finished product A+B, and sells it at market for 4

At this time, both P and Q get 2 for the effort of 1, and the value of the final product 4 is well distributed.

Another case

Mr. P uses the labor of 1 to make part A and sells it at 2 in the market.

Mr. Q buys part A at the market for 2, uses 1 labor to make finished product A+B, and sells it at the market for 10

At this time, Mr. P gets 2 for 1 effort and Mr. Q gets 8 for 1 effort.

The value 10 of the final product is not well distributed.

There are those who consider this situation as "that is the way the market is and the status quo is correct" and those who consider "this is a case where the market does not work well, the status quo is not correct".

Plurality book p.228

https://gyazo.com/10f4d4e5e9210c56da3e02ad562d60b6

If there is synergy in combining parts, the harvest will increase in value, so that those who put in the labor later will produce more value per effort. If everyone who cooperates is paid the same as the last person, the profit margin would be negative.

On the other hand, if this composition is left unchecked, the total amount of cooperation in society will decrease because those who move early in the process will lose out because they pay less for their labor, thus creating a bias to avoid it.

---