Employees pay Bezos the surplus value of their labor. Their wages are what Bezos allows them to keep, not what Bezos pays them.
Put differently, if a company loses money, is it always because the employees aren’t working hard enough?
Or a company could be ordering their employees to work in an unprofitable way, or the company could be spending the money on unnecessary non-labor expenditures...
After all, Amazon famously doesn't need the labor of their employees to sell the products and services that support their value :-)
The LTV doesn't guarantee a direct relationship between real labor and realized value (which is a combination of market and economic value): it describes a relationship between socially necessary labor and economic value.
I personally think that idea is incorrect (and labor theory of value has limited application), but I have been seeing arguments where everyone picks and chooses the idea when it is applied personally vs applied to someone else.
Yes, this is what happens when the labor is something that can effectively be independent, operate without massive capital investment, or be relocated easily. E.g. doctors, programmers, lawyers, plumbers.
But many kinds of labor are only useful in a coordinated context, requiring capital support and infrastructure, perhaps due to economies of scale, natural monopolies, regulatory restrictions, and the like. So that kind of worker must be embedded in a firm to be effective. Currently, policy is written to support corporate firms, and suppress cooperative organization and independent labor, so there's not really an option for most workers to depart. There's no such thing as an independent one-man freelance car manufacturer, for instance.
This is the distinction between the marxist concepts of petit-bourgeoisie and proletariat.
So if labor is just one of many inputs, it seems wrong to attribute all profit to labor as if it played the only part.
land itself is just about the only thing that is arguably not ultimately labor, but it seems that through the capitalist lens, land is only valuable due to location (proximity to labor?) or resources gained by application of labor to the land. you could make some arguments about conservation, but those tend to be either moral arguments about externalities which by definition are not systematically considered by capitalism, or arguments about natural environments as a resource, in which maintenance and access management become the value-creating labor.