What classes of human will we apply lower values to?

although money is a nice diversion!

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.

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.

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.

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.

The value of something isn't always measured in monetary terms.

The value of something isn't always measured in monetary terms.

Anything of real value will always have an assigned monetary value. The only true measure of value is a number. Anything that doesn't have a number has no value. There are no grey areas.

Anything of real value will always have an assigned monetary value. The only true measure of value is a number. Anything that doesn't have a number has no value. There are no grey areas.

But billions of people would value clean water over a diamond ring.

I suspect you too would think the water had an higher value to you if you was lost in the desert.

But billions of people would value clean water over a diamond ring. I suspect you too would think the water had an higher value to you if you was lost in the desert.

You're an idealist and that's very sweet but today, here in the real world, if given the choice between a bucket of clean water or a diamond ring, I'd obviously pick the ring, so would you. That's because the ring is of high value and the water has no value. If you posed that same question to 1 billion people, they would all pick the ring unless they were on fire and even then they'd be wise to quickly ask regarding the quality of the diamond and hope to find a nearby river to jump into instead. In fact, if you were to ask 1000 people thirsty and desperate for water they would also pick the ring to fund a well.

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.

You seem to assume we have a totally fair free-market, where equilibrium has been achieved.

In the real world, we have many markets, that are manipulated to various degrees, and humans, their labour, capital, land, food, homes, consumer items etc. are not valued correctly.

People face restrictions on their movement, and compete in a market that is highly manipulated. The low waged agricultural worker is not able to compete in a free-market, he is unable to move to greener pastures, and unable to use idle land to his and wider society's benefit.

Not even 2 years ago we still had the SAWS active in the UK as it had been for over 50 years. Whereby foreign workers were allowed into the UK temporarily to work on farms, and were only allowed to work on farms, they faced restrictions on their movement and the ability to participate in wider society, access to it's services etc. they would live in caravans on the farmers land, for which they would have deductions made to their meagre salaries, so that they were effectively paid below minimum wage.

Gangmasters, slavery and exploitation are still rife in the UK farming industry, and foreigners with few rights are often the victims.

We do not live in a free-market.

You seem to assume we have a totally fair free-market, where equilibrium has been achieved.

I was answering the question, that logically 'we' apply lower value to those who create, generate, earn, lower revenue or income, which makes perfect sense.

I was answering the question, that logically 'we' apply lower value to those who create, generate, earn, lower revenue or income, which makes perfect sense.

We do not do that though.

Lower value is applied to certain classes by an elite, depending upon how the market is rigged.

Some people have been starved, worked, raped & beaten to death due to the market being rigged, and not in their favour. They were of course killed logically.

Their value was not determined by their ability to create, generate & earn lower revenue/income though. Nor was it determined by the actually revenue/income they created/generated/earned.

I was answering the question, that logically 'we' apply lower value to those who create, generate, earn, lower revenue or income, which makes perfect sense.

You've just lost all credibility I'm afraid.