Values in disarray

In the last Marx reading, when he talks about the economic facts, the third one that we discussed posed some questions for me. It stated that as the value of things goes up, the value of the workers goes proportionally down. I was a little confused about this. When the value of an item goes up, it is plausible that this may have to do with the amount of effort that went into making the item. This would make it seem that the people who made it should be more valued. For instance, a hand-thrown bowl will usually cost more than one created in a factory. I think in this case, the cost of the item does not de-value the worker, but instead gives room for the worker his/herself to be valued to a greater extent, does it not? It seems that here, the worker is being valued more for creating something entirely on their own, and putting more effort into it, by the cost of the item going up, therefore giving them more benefits from it.

Moreover, would an object of labor then have to be free for the worker creating it to be completely valued? If the laborer is valued most when the cost of the item is at its lowest, in order for people to be valued at the greatest extent, would they not have to give all of their goods away for free? Is there then a cap on how much value can be given to the worker for his/her labor?

Lastly, we discussed that under capitalism, the more that the worker puts into the labor, the less of their life belongs to themselves, and instead more of their life belongs to the owner of the means of production. Well what if the creator of the object is also the owner of the means of production? Is he/she then not loosing any of their “life” in the creation of their goods? If everyone worked for themselves, would we then be rid of this problem?