What classes of human will we apply lower values to?

[Chelle-82]

Capitalism simply gives monetary values to wealth creators. That is all. You are extrapolating that monetary value equals all value and you are wrong. If you have kids then they have a negative value to you because they cost you more than they will ever give back? If you look at life through such a narrow lens then I pity you.

 

---------- Post added 18-05-2015 at 16:53 ----------

 

 

Or more simply put, who's more successful? The guy who dies happy but poor or the guy who dies miserable but rich? I know who I'd rather be. If money buys you happiness then I question the 'value' of your life.

 

I saw this quote earlier on another thread and I think it's rather appropriate.

 

What's the point in being the richest man in the graveyard.

[loraward]

Being a person of value is how much you earn! It logically can't be anything else.

 

So in your opinion the people that produce and sell the food you eat have very little value to society.

 

My guess would be that if all the high earners ceased to exist the food producers would do just fine, if all the food producers ceased to exist the high earner would starve to death, this means the low paid food producers are far more important to society than the high earning bankers.

[ubermaus]

I've never met anyone who would consider themselves to be a success with a low net worth. It makes no sense. Billions of people are capable, doesn't make them successful or of high value unless they've harnessed their talents into actual value.

 

If you value yourself by net-worth and are poor financially, then by definition you've failed.

However, many people have a more rounded view which is a lot more healthy than always chasing a pound note.

 

---------- Post added 18-05-2015 at 16:59 ----------

 

If we carry on like this someone is going to start saying we are like Mecky/Boomer or Smithy/Loraward...

 

I know, daring to look out for people and thinking of others welfare, jesus...its terrible.

[SOHO]

So in your opinion the people that produce and sell the food you eat have very little value to society.

 

My guess would be that if all the high earners ceased to exist the food producers would do just fine, if all the food producers ceased to exist the high earner would starve to death, this means the low paid food producers are far more important to society than the high earning bankers.

 

There is something in that, but not the low wage workers, they have little value, more the farmers, we will certainly see their value rise in the future.

[ubermaus]

I saw this quote earlier on another thread and I think it's rather appropriate.

 

What's the point in being the richest man in the graveyard.

 

I was thinking this, 'experiences' are much more important than money. You cant take it with you.

[sgtkate]

So in your opinion the people that produce and sell the food you eat have very little value to society.

 

My guess would be that if all the high earners ceased to exist the food producers would do just fine, if all the food producers ceased to exist the high earner would starve to death, this means the low paid food producers are far more important to society than the high earning bankers.

 

Totally correct. Money only have a value while people are prepared to give it one. Even our notes have 'I promise to pay the bearer...' meaning that money actually has no value except the value implied. If money stops having any value you'll find out just how much 'value' those farmers have.

 

Apologies for the overuse of the word 'value'.

Edited May 18, 2015 by sgtkate

[ubermaus]

although money is a nice diversion!

[altus]

Perhaps we as a society will also apply 'lower value' to others.

 

What do you think?

 

I think we should apply 'lower value' to those who quite obviously live under bridges.

[loraward]

There is something in that, but not the low wage workers, they have little value, more the farmers, we will certainly see their value rise in the future.

 

The wealthy land owning farmer relies on low waged farm hand without which they couldn't produce your food, alternatively they rely on machines which replace the farm hands, but there are also low paid workers contributing to the manufacture of those machines without which the farmer couldn't produce your food.

[SOHO]

The wealthier land owning farmer relies on low waged farm hand without which they couldn't produce your food, alternatively they rely on machines which replace the farm hands, but there are also low paid workers contributing to the manufacture of those machines without which the farmer couldn't produce your food.

 

It's very cute that you value these low paid workers so highly. In reality they get paid what they're worth. They are of low value proven by their pay of which they accept, if they could go on to greener pastures, then they obviously would.