Flippanarchy

I appreciate the response, but I don't understand how this answers my questions. Could you give me a bit more detail?

The question of education ignores that the doctors also did large amounts of labor as students, not just their teachers. So that provides the solution . . . .pay students for the time they spend working on their future productivity through education.

~~This doesn't actually answer where the value comes from. My question is: I presume that you value education, and that teachers should be paid for their labour, but from where does the value of that labor derive? If it isn't coming from the future expected productivity of their pupils, then it's coming out of thin air. Saying "let's also pay the students during that time" doesn't solve the problem. In fact, it compounds it, because if you're paying both the students and the teachers for just doing those things, then from where is the value originating?~~

Edit: I think, on reflection, I might understand what you meant on the first point: are you suggesting that the additional value of the doctor's work is how you pay the teachers, and thus the doctor's future payment remains the same, because it was already paid out to them and to their teachers, for the period of time they were training? Because that makes some sense, and I'll have to think about it for a bit. I still don't get any of the rest of your arguments.

the average across an industry is fine.

This incentivises oligopolistic collusion and price fixing.

Their stories won't add up.

See 4. Who determines that their stories don't add up? How much of the population must be engaged in the bureaucracy of measuring every detail of reported value?

we don't currently see hospital janitors paid a premium.

And? Why shouldn't we? Are you seriously using the system under capitalism to justify not doing better under socialism? This argument is whataboutism. I can disapprove of the capitalist practice while also pointing out problems with an opposing theory.

4 is just the same as 2.

Patently false. 4 is a necessity because of all of the others. Someone has to determine what labour has value, someone has to determine and publish the values of each product and service. The labour theory of value requires a regulating system. This must either be a command economy, setting the values of everything, or it must effectively be an honour system equivalent to the free market, where the producers simply declare the value of the things they produce and it's up to the consumer to determine the fairness of different prices. So, I ask again, since you can't just brush off the question like it's asked-and-answered: Who are the guards who set the value of all things? Is it the "invisible hand" of the free market "self-regulating"? (in which case, how do we know that excess value is not being assigned to products by their producers?) Is it the audit of a bureaucrat whom we must trust not to be corrupt? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? How do we ensure that this doesn't simply devolve back into capitalism or, just as bad, oligarchic entrenched corruption?

Again, I want to make this work, but I don't understand how these questions can be answered without saying, effectively, that we must have a command economy setting the prices of all things, and trusting that the bureaucrats who are running the place aren't lining their own pockets. I don't want to hear about how "capitalism is just as bad". Yes, that's why we need something better. So I want to understand how this is better in these specific respects.