[throwawayday]

>>if your labour is only worth $26K this means you're >>contributing very little of any value to society

>This is way, way wrong. This is a very pervasive error in >reasoning. Just because someone is only willing to pay X >amount for your labor, doesn't mean that labor is worth X >amount to society. When there are a lot of people willing >to perform said labor, that pushes down the monetary value >of that labor. This is completely independent of its value >to society

bzzt, wrong - if you're paid less it means your skill is of less value to society - supply is just a part of the equation. No one wants a cat chef - the skill is worthless to society - even if you are the only one that can fillet a cat.

Your last paragraph is dead-on, though. Societal worth does not equate to moral worth - on a moral scale, all men are equal. On a societal scale, not so much.

[hackinthebochs]

>if you're paid less it means your skill is of less value to society

Nope. The point is that someone is willing to pay for a skill does not equal what that skill is worth to society. I think my example explains the distinction well, you've said nothing to refute it. People love to refer to market value as if it correlates with actual worth. This is just wrong. There are plenty of instances of things that have much value but the market cannot price them properly.