The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
The most obvious example might be a professional athlete. Sure, there are enough people out there willing to pay Derek Jeter $25m per year to play and endorse products, but does Derek Jeter really improve the world to the same degree that 10 oncologists at $250k per year or 60 teachers at $40k per year do?
The professional athlete argument is the biggest bullshit a bull ever shit.
Look, people like sports. Sports are entertaining. They go to games, they watch it on TV. They pay for this stuff. It's their choice. The money is going in, regardless. Would you rather have the team owners make the money, or the athletes?
Also, teachers get paid ok considering the amount of vacation they get.
I think there's some rich people hating going on. They're certainly not 'down to earth' as the salt of the earth people, whoever they are, blah blah blah. But it's not a big deal. Yeah, the rich guy might lose the girl in the movie, but nothing major. Being rich is hardly seen as a bad thing (because it's not), and I can't count the number of times I heard 'hard-working' used as a synonym for 'saint'.
I don't know. In my experience the rich-hating is more wide-spread than that. Just the other day on CNN there was a celebrity coverage and the subtitle read: "Celebrities get richer as the poor get poorer" I mean really? Granted that this is anecdotal, but it fits in with the attitudes of most people I've met in life.
Nevermind "attitudes", it's true. I don't see any problem with news media reporting what is actually happening.
Oh please. You have to be either extremely naive or just blind if you think they're just reporting what is happening. I mean, some people getting richer and others getting poorer is a fact of life. Why point out any in particular? Or, why didn't they say "rich are getting richer while Group X are getting poorer"?
1- Money is not important... is bullshit. Money is always important.
Enough money is important - to pay your bills, buy food, have somewhere safe to live, be able to go out once in a while, buy the things your kids need ...
But how much money is enough? That's the thing: you never know. You can either choose to be on the safe side and hoard it so you can afford to get out of unforeseen and difficult situations, or you can choose to get enough to just get by and get completely screwed when something bad happens.
I've experienced both - living on benefits/state handouts for 4 years, and earning more money than I could spend. I'm somewhere in the middle now - I have more than I need to sustain a pleasant life, and be able to give money away without strings. Being poor was hard, in lots of ways, but I had more time to do things that matter. Having shed loads of money was good in some ways, but our quality of life was actually worse, because we had no time together as a family, cos I was either working or too tired. Striving after money can be more damaging to your life than struggling.
3- Money can buy happiness, if what you want is purchasable (turns out that, most of the time, it is).
Friendship? Satisfying relationships? Love? Peace of mind?
Money can certainly buy peace of mind.
Friendship too. Hand out a loan to someone who is in desperate need, or connect them with someone who gives them a well-paying job, and they'll be your friend forever.
Satisfying relationships... it depends on what satisfies you.
Love? See above.[/QUOTE]
Buying friendship? Buying love? Don't see how that works, if the money runs out, what happens to the paid for friends/love, does that run out, too?
I understand, really well, the striving for money, I'd just rather strive for more important (to me) things, but then, I have enough money to live on now. Maybe I'd feel different if I was poor again, but we didn't strive for money then, we just carried on with our lives, cos we knew it wouldn't always be so.
LewieP's Mummy on
For all the top UK Gaming Bargains, check out SavyGamer
That is easy. The professional athlete affects so many more people. How many lives has Tiger Woods or Michael Jordan inspired?
I'm suggesting that a person's salary is not directly proportional to their benefit to the world. I don't see this as particularly controversial, and the fact that you have to fall back on fuzzy ill-defined intangibles like "inspiration" over a direct tangible benefit like "curing cancer" indicates to me that you're grasping at straws.
I think, in response to your counter argument, I'd say that in your examples you're too obsessed with tangible benefits. Entertainment is not a tangible benefit yet it has a great deal of value to a lot of people. Take it away and you'd see the society's productivity plummet, and people would be much less happy.
So, on the contrary, I think his point is very valid. Tiger Woods provides entertainment for millions of people. Okay, let's say that "inspiration" is intangible. What about the businesses that have spawned and the jobs that were created as a result? How many young men started playing basketball because they wanted to be like Jordan, and as a result became more fit, and maybe even got things like scholarships and awards?
We could play this game all day. You want to talk about side businesses? Yes, construction workers might have been given jobs to build stadiums but they could have made their wages building hospitals instead. Instead of selling sports memorabilia we could be selling medicines. And why are young men inspired to play basketball instead of saving lives? To get fit instead of getting smart (as if there were a dichotomy)? That right there is a conundrum we could devote an entire thread to, but I would argue that it's the direct result of a mishmash of cultural forces - including the advertising firms that market pro athletes as products - not all of which are healthy.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Yeah, we could go back and forth all day, or recognize that money has been proven time and time again to be the best measurement or what you are attempting to measure. If you have a better measurement of objective value, I'd like to hear it.
Oh please. You have to be either extremely naive or just blind if you think they're just reporting what is happening. I mean, some people getting richer and others getting poorer is a fact of life. Why point out any in particular? Or, why didn't they say "rich are getting richer while Group X are getting poorer"?
No, no, no. This isn't "some people" getting richer or poorer. This is people who are already rich getting much richer, and people who are already poor getting poorer. This is something of a big deal, considering that the people in the "poor" category far and away outnumber the people in the "rich" category.
I can't speak to why CNN chose to mention celebrities in this particular case. If I had to guess though, I'd say it probably had something to do with the fact that the entire spot was about celebrities.
The most obvious example might be a professional athlete. Sure, there are enough people out there willing to pay Derek Jeter $25m per year to play and endorse products, but does Derek Jeter really improve the world to the same degree that 10 oncologists at $250k per year or 60 teachers at $40k per year do?
The professional athlete argument is the biggest bullshit a bull ever shit.
Look, people like sports. Sports are entertaining. They go to games, they watch it on TV. They pay for this stuff. It's their choice.
Woo. My point
> .
Your head
> o
Watch it sail!
Whether or not it's the consumer's choice to pay for the stuff is irrelevant. I'm not arguing that anybody got defrauded. I'm arguing that several million people funneling money into the hands of a handful of elite athletes and business people for entertainment is not exactly like, but is akin to, a community action problem. That the transaction was worth it for each individual consumer does not mean that there was a proportional benefit to society as a whole.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I think there's some rich people hating going on. They're certainly not 'down to earth' as the salt of the earth people, whoever they are, blah blah blah. But it's not a big deal. Yeah, the rich guy might lose the girl in the movie, but nothing major. Being rich is hardly seen as a bad thing (because it's not), and I can't count the number of times I heard 'hard-working' used as a synonym for 'saint'.
I don't know. In my experience the rich-hating is more wide-spread than that. Just the other day on CNN there was a celebrity coverage and the subtitle read: "Celebrities get richer as the poor get poorer" I mean really? Granted that this is anecdotal, but it fits in with the attitudes of most people I've met in life.
Nevermind "attitudes", it's true. I don't see any problem with news media reporting what is actually happening.
Oh please. You have to be either extremely naive or just blind if you think they're just reporting what is happening. I mean, some people getting richer and others getting poorer is a fact of life. Why point out any in particular? Or, why didn't they say "rich are getting richer while Group X are getting poorer"?
While the celebrities thing is unnecessary, all stats point to a widening gap between the rich and everyone else, most clearly seen in how the median income is dropping while the mean is at least holding steady doe to the rich outliers.
I think there's jealousy for those who do better from everyone who isn't doing quite as well. Financially, that is. Everyone* wants a bigger house, a nicer TV, or a taller yacht. That's pretty normal, hardly life-consuming, and barely noteworthy.
Ambition though? That's totally different. The demonized stereotypes aren't ambitious, or demonized for ambition. They're vicious strongmen (and bitches), who want to get their way no matter the consequences for other people (the community center, nooooo!). Go and use 'driven' as a pejorative in a conversation and see who nods like you're making sense.
Well, time for my take on the subject. Apologies if your eyes spontanously combust 'cos of my grammar skills, I'm still new :P
So, anyway. I don't think ambition itself is "evil". Actually, there are many nice words for people who strife for something. Gotta agree there, it's not really the ambitious people who can pride themselves with further vocabulary enrichment, it's the jackasses and hobby sociopaths that take ambition too far. There's a difference between aiming for the top and aiming for the one who's at the top.
And with all that rich vs. poor thing... That's centuries old, right? I don't think it's influencing people much differently than it did before. You know, 'cept there's less stone throwing and whatnot.
We could play this game all day. You want to talk about side businesses? Yes, construction workers might have been given jobs to build stadiums but they could have made their wages building hospitals instead.
What hospitals?
It's not like there's a limited number of construction workers and they're choosing to build a stadium instead of a hospital. Rather, they're making more money because they have more projects to complete, which is a good thing. So your argument doesn't really stand.
Instead of selling sports memorabilia we could be selling medicines. And why are young men inspired to play basketball instead of saving lives? To get fit instead of getting smart (as if there were a dichotomy)?
So you admit that it's a false dichotomy.
Good.
(and actually, being physically active does improve your mental functions, thus making you smarter.)
That right there is a conundrum we could devote an entire thread to, but I would argue that it's the direct result of a mishmash of cultural forces - including the advertising firms that market pro athletes as products - not all of which are healthy.
Maybe not all of them are healthy. I am just disagreeing with your blatant dismissal of the intangible value of things like entertainment to society simply on the basis that they are intangible, and holding superior things like medicine and education simply on the basis that their value is tangible.
No, no, no. This isn't "some people" getting richer or poorer. This is people who are already rich getting much richer, and people who are already poor getting poorer. This is something of a big deal, considering that the people in the "poor" category far and away outnumber the people in the "rich" category.
So do I understand your position, ege and/or Yar, as being that a professional athlete's higher salary is evidence that he contributes more good to the world than a doctor (or possibly 10 doctors)?
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
recognize that money has been proven time and time again to be the best measurement or what you are attempting to measure.
[citation needed]
Sports prediction markets, social predictions market (InTrade), there was that study where giving clinics money and credits they could use to buy and sell flu vaccines from each other resulted in improved outbreak predictions... but the important question is whether or not you seem to believe there is a better objective measurement of value, and what that measurement is? And when you find it, let us know, because it will surely become our new form of currency.
So do I understand your position, ege and/or Yar, as being that a professional athlete's higher salary is evidence that he contributes more good to the world than a doctor (or possibly 10 doctors)?
Yes, using a economic measurement of "good" as opposed to defining good to be that which Feral considers good.
So do I understand your position, ege and/or Yar, as being that a professional athlete's higher salary is evidence that he contributes more good to the world than a doctor (or possibly 10 doctors)?
Yes, using a economic definition of "good" as opposed to definining good to be that which Feral considers good.
Wouldn't the economic definition of "good" essentially be "that which is worth more money?"
Alternatively:
By the phrase "that which Feral considers good" are you trying to imply that the statement "curing cancer is good" is arbitrary or subjective?
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
To be sure, an individual who cures cancer will be extremely wealthy.
But yeah, that's what money is. It's what people are willing to work for. It's time out of our lives and our efforts and the use of things we own. That's what value is.
To be sure, an individual who cures cancer will be extremely wealthy.
Don't be obtuse. It was pretty clear from my example of oncologists that "curing cancer" referred to curing individual patients of cancer, not to curing the disease in general.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Don't be obtuse. It was pretty clear from my example of oncologists that "curing cancer" referred to curing individual patients of cancer, not to curing the disease in general.
No, I didn't get that at all. Hold off on the insults.
I thought for sure that since I had already addressed that point by demonstrating the sheer orders of magnitude of difference in the number of people affected, that you had then moved on to curing cancer worldwide.
How many lives can an oncologist save? How many can ten save? How important is an athlete to a life? How many lives does an athlete affect? Answer those questions, then do the math.
Or, like I said, money already did the math for you.
Who was it that said "The greatest comfort the upper-class have ever given themselves is that poor people are more happy". Or something along those lines. I think it has been taken in reverse, that people often automatically assume people with money are unhappy, because of the media often depicting it that way.
I do not think ambition is a bad thing, hell, I'm quite ambitios. The world would be no where without people raising the bar and willing to take risks. I do think that there are wrong ways to apply ones own ambition, such as needlessly hurting people for self gain, and commiting dishonorable practices, but then again that is such a grey are that it would be hard to argue either way.
jeddy lee on
Backlog Challenge: 0%
0/8
PS2
FF X replay
PS3
God of War 1&2 HD
Rachet and Clank Future
MGS 4
Prince of Persia
Or, like I said, money already did the math for you.
So then do I understand your argument as:
Derek Jeter makes more money than an oncologist.
Therefore Derek Jeter contributes more to society.
Therefore it is acceptable that he makes more money.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Please. People hate rich assholes. They people that whine about the estate tax or trust fund kids that go on realty tv and complain about how tough they have it. Do people hate decent rich people? If they do for the sole fact that they are rich, then yes, that is dumb.
And no, money is not the most important thing in the world. My family has been fairly well off while I've grown up, but I've often had a miserable home life due to my siblings. I don't value my parents for their (admittedly impressive) ability to earn money, but rather as two people that accepted and loved me no matter what.
Like other people have said, ambition is not bad. However, if ambition blinds you to things like empathy, compassion, and decency and you still scratch your head over why people hate you then you a narrow sighted fool.
Derek Jeter makes more money than an oncologist.
Therefore Derek Jeter contributes more to society.
Therefore it is acceptable that he makes more money.
Sure - but you are confusing that little argument with your word "acceptable." I would say statements one and two make the argument by themselves, and could be stated in either order. Statement three is my question to you: how would you define what is acceptable?
I can definitely talk about good and bad in terms that transcend money... but it seems that you want to do so with the net result still being that those who are the goodest get the most money, which seems contradictory. If money =/= good, then why should the best get the most money? Money = value, and the most valuable get the most money. That's the truth of it. It is the measurement of their contribution to society better than any other measurement I know of.
Derek Jeter makes more money than an oncologist.
Therefore Derek Jeter contributes more to society.
Therefore it is acceptable that he makes more money.
Sure - but you are confusing that little argument with your word "acceptable." I would say statements one and two make the argument by themselves, and could be stated in either order. Statement three is my question to you: how would you define what is acceptable?
I can definitely talk about good and bad in terms that transcend money... but it seems that you want to do so with the net result still being that those who are the goodest get the most money, which seems contradictory. If money =/= good, then why should the best get the most money? Money = value, and the most valuable get the most money. That's the truth of it. It is the measurement of their contribution to society better than any other measurement I know of.
Come off it. People pay fortunes for handless watches, but I don't think even you would argue those are better at telling time than ones that actually do.
And riddle me this: Why does anybody participating in or acting as an accessory to the existence of NASCAR make any money?
Letting the market determine value is good because it maximizes surplus, and is better than anything else. This silliness about that somehow meaning whoever makes more money makes a larger 'contribution to society' is, well, silly.
Letting the market determine value is good because it maximizes surplus, and is better than anything else. This silliness about that somehow meaning whoever makes more money makes a larger 'contribution to society' is, well, silly.
Unless you're dealing with the law of the next best, in which case it isn't better.
Letting the market determine value is good because it maximizes surplus, and is better than anything else. This silliness about that somehow meaning whoever makes more money makes a larger 'contribution to society' is, well, silly.
It is silly because things like "contribution" and "good" and "value" are all vague and subjective terms, especially in the context of an argument such as the one we are having. For the same reasons we can't measure utility, we can't measure a person's contribution to society, or how much good they do, or their value to the people around them.
Therefore, any arguments that point to those huge salaries being unjustified are, as well, silly. That's why I never bought into the athlete and celebrity and lawyer etc. hate; they focus on tangible contributions and completely ignore the intangible/secondary/tertiary etc. benefits that we can't track or measure but nevertheless know as existing.
Humor me and define "contribution." Economically speaking, we all know who wins. "Whoever does the most to preserve and protect human life" would go to people like paramedics, surgeons, firefighters, etc...or is it the doctor that develops the cure for cancer?
I think the difficulty in pinning down this definition is painfully blatant; so how is this argument at all resolvable?
Humor me and define "contribution." Economically speaking, we all know who wins. "Whoever does the most to preserve and protect human life" would go to people like paramedics, surgeons, firefighters, etc...or is it the doctor that develops the cure for cancer?
I think the difficulty in pinning down this definition is painfully blatant; so how is this argument at all resolvable?
Why not the person who funds the doctor so he can discover the cure so the surgeon can administer it?
Humor me and define "contribution." Economically speaking, we all know who wins. "Whoever does the most to preserve and protect human life" would go to people like paramedics, surgeons, firefighters, etc...or is it the doctor that develops the cure for cancer?
I think the difficulty in pinning down this definition is painfully blatant; so how is this argument at all resolvable?
Why not the person who funds the doctor so he can discover the cure so the surgeon can administer it?
So all the rich people really do contribute the most?
Come off it. People pay fortunes for handless watches, but I don't think even you would argue those are better at telling time than ones that actually do.
"Telling time" is not the ultimate measurement of "good," nor is functional utility, but your argument supposes such to be true.
Posts
Look, people like sports. Sports are entertaining. They go to games, they watch it on TV. They pay for this stuff. It's their choice. The money is going in, regardless. Would you rather have the team owners make the money, or the athletes?
Also, teachers get paid ok considering the amount of vacation they get.
Oh please. You have to be either extremely naive or just blind if you think they're just reporting what is happening. I mean, some people getting richer and others getting poorer is a fact of life. Why point out any in particular? Or, why didn't they say "rich are getting richer while Group X are getting poorer"?
I've experienced both - living on benefits/state handouts for 4 years, and earning more money than I could spend. I'm somewhere in the middle now - I have more than I need to sustain a pleasant life, and be able to give money away without strings. Being poor was hard, in lots of ways, but I had more time to do things that matter. Having shed loads of money was good in some ways, but our quality of life was actually worse, because we had no time together as a family, cos I was either working or too tired. Striving after money can be more damaging to your life than struggling.
Money can certainly buy peace of mind.
Friendship too. Hand out a loan to someone who is in desperate need, or connect them with someone who gives them a well-paying job, and they'll be your friend forever.
Satisfying relationships... it depends on what satisfies you.
Love? See above.[/QUOTE]
Buying friendship? Buying love? Don't see how that works, if the money runs out, what happens to the paid for friends/love, does that run out, too?
I understand, really well, the striving for money, I'd just rather strive for more important (to me) things, but then, I have enough money to live on now. Maybe I'd feel different if I was poor again, but we didn't strive for money then, we just carried on with our lives, cos we knew it wouldn't always be so.
For paintings in progress, check out canvas and paints
"The power of the weirdness compels me."
We could play this game all day. You want to talk about side businesses? Yes, construction workers might have been given jobs to build stadiums but they could have made their wages building hospitals instead. Instead of selling sports memorabilia we could be selling medicines. And why are young men inspired to play basketball instead of saving lives? To get fit instead of getting smart (as if there were a dichotomy)? That right there is a conundrum we could devote an entire thread to, but I would argue that it's the direct result of a mishmash of cultural forces - including the advertising firms that market pro athletes as products - not all of which are healthy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I can't speak to why CNN chose to mention celebrities in this particular case. If I had to guess though, I'd say it probably had something to do with the fact that the entire spot was about celebrities.
Woo. My point
> .
Your head
> o
Watch it sail!
Whether or not it's the consumer's choice to pay for the stuff is irrelevant. I'm not arguing that anybody got defrauded. I'm arguing that several million people funneling money into the hands of a handful of elite athletes and business people for entertainment is not exactly like, but is akin to, a community action problem. That the transaction was worth it for each individual consumer does not mean that there was a proportional benefit to society as a whole.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
While the celebrities thing is unnecessary, all stats point to a widening gap between the rich and everyone else, most clearly seen in how the median income is dropping while the mean is at least holding steady doe to the rich outliers.
Ambition though? That's totally different. The demonized stereotypes aren't ambitious, or demonized for ambition. They're vicious strongmen (and bitches), who want to get their way no matter the consequences for other people (the community center, nooooo!). Go and use 'driven' as a pejorative in a conversation and see who nods like you're making sense.
*almost.
[citation needed]
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
So, anyway. I don't think ambition itself is "evil". Actually, there are many nice words for people who strife for something. Gotta agree there, it's not really the ambitious people who can pride themselves with further vocabulary enrichment, it's the jackasses and hobby sociopaths that take ambition too far. There's a difference between aiming for the top and aiming for the one who's at the top.
And with all that rich vs. poor thing... That's centuries old, right? I don't think it's influencing people much differently than it did before. You know, 'cept there's less stone throwing and whatnot.
But the thing about that is, that you work a lot so that one day you don't have to work at all.
What hospitals?
It's not like there's a limited number of construction workers and they're choosing to build a stadium instead of a hospital. Rather, they're making more money because they have more projects to complete, which is a good thing. So your argument doesn't really stand.
So you admit that it's a false dichotomy.
Good.
(and actually, being physically active does improve your mental functions, thus making you smarter.)
Maybe not all of them are healthy. I am just disagreeing with your blatant dismissal of the intangible value of things like entertainment to society simply on the basis that they are intangible, and holding superior things like medicine and education simply on the basis that their value is tangible.
And why must the poor be entitled to everything?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Yes, using a economic measurement of "good" as opposed to defining good to be that which Feral considers good.
Wouldn't the economic definition of "good" essentially be "that which is worth more money?"
Alternatively:
By the phrase "that which Feral considers good" are you trying to imply that the statement "curing cancer is good" is arbitrary or subjective?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
But yeah, that's what money is. It's what people are willing to work for. It's time out of our lives and our efforts and the use of things we own. That's what value is.
Don't be obtuse. It was pretty clear from my example of oncologists that "curing cancer" referred to curing individual patients of cancer, not to curing the disease in general.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I thought for sure that since I had already addressed that point by demonstrating the sheer orders of magnitude of difference in the number of people affected, that you had then moved on to curing cancer worldwide.
How many lives can an oncologist save? How many can ten save? How important is an athlete to a life? How many lives does an athlete affect? Answer those questions, then do the math.
Or, like I said, money already did the math for you.
I do not think ambition is a bad thing, hell, I'm quite ambitios. The world would be no where without people raising the bar and willing to take risks. I do think that there are wrong ways to apply ones own ambition, such as needlessly hurting people for self gain, and commiting dishonorable practices, but then again that is such a grey are that it would be hard to argue either way.
PS2
FF X replay
PS3
God of War 1&2 HD
Rachet and Clank Future
MGS 4
Prince of Persia
360
Bayonetta
Fable 3
DS
FF: 4 heroes of light
So then do I understand your argument as:
Derek Jeter makes more money than an oncologist.
Therefore Derek Jeter contributes more to society.
Therefore it is acceptable that he makes more money.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Please. People hate rich assholes. They people that whine about the estate tax or trust fund kids that go on realty tv and complain about how tough they have it. Do people hate decent rich people? If they do for the sole fact that they are rich, then yes, that is dumb.
And no, money is not the most important thing in the world. My family has been fairly well off while I've grown up, but I've often had a miserable home life due to my siblings. I don't value my parents for their (admittedly impressive) ability to earn money, but rather as two people that accepted and loved me no matter what.
Like other people have said, ambition is not bad. However, if ambition blinds you to things like empathy, compassion, and decency and you still scratch your head over why people hate you then you a narrow sighted fool.
I can definitely talk about good and bad in terms that transcend money... but it seems that you want to do so with the net result still being that those who are the goodest get the most money, which seems contradictory. If money =/= good, then why should the best get the most money? Money = value, and the most valuable get the most money. That's the truth of it. It is the measurement of their contribution to society better than any other measurement I know of.
Come off it. People pay fortunes for handless watches, but I don't think even you would argue those are better at telling time than ones that actually do.
And riddle me this: Why does anybody participating in or acting as an accessory to the existence of NASCAR make any money?
Unless you're dealing with the law of the next best, in which case it isn't better.
It is silly because things like "contribution" and "good" and "value" are all vague and subjective terms, especially in the context of an argument such as the one we are having. For the same reasons we can't measure utility, we can't measure a person's contribution to society, or how much good they do, or their value to the people around them.
Therefore, any arguments that point to those huge salaries being unjustified are, as well, silly. That's why I never bought into the athlete and celebrity and lawyer etc. hate; they focus on tangible contributions and completely ignore the intangible/secondary/tertiary etc. benefits that we can't track or measure but nevertheless know as existing.
I think the difficulty in pinning down this definition is painfully blatant; so how is this argument at all resolvable?
Why not the person who funds the doctor so he can discover the cure so the surgeon can administer it?
So all the rich people really do contribute the most?
There is no light at the end of this discussion.
Right... so some get to decide value and others don't.
That's what I'm saying.
Why?