sardia wrote:Fair enough, I'll restate my post. Princess Marzipan, you're being facetious. See my previous post.
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
For teacher salaries, I snatched a ballpark estimate out of thin-air and was incorrect. I also appear to overestimated most baseball players' salaries. My larger point remains, though:
CorruptUser wrote:The baseball player provides entertainment, which has some value. While providing education requires over a million teachers, you only need a couple hundred baseball players to provide entertainment. Each baseball player/team can entertain millions at a time, while a teacher may be able to teach 25.
Princess Marzipan wrote:That is no justification for the existence of baseball players who make more in one year than most teachers will make across their entire careers.
But the baseball/teacher thing was brought up simply as an example through which to reject the idea that money, income, is an accurate measure of one's contributions to the whole of society. I can find other examples if income disparities between baseball players and teachers is something people are seriously going to justify.
For one, the President of the USA earns $400,000 in annual income. Conservative estimates
of $20 million a year for Wal-Mart's CEO means, if we do not reject money as a measure of contribution, that Wal-Mart's CEO does 50 times as much for society as the President of the United States.
(Oh. Also, email spammers and Nigerian princes. Not even in relation to anything. Just that exist and somehow make money at all
Therefore, money is absolutely fucking terrible means of measuring a person's social contributions.
People are more than what they produce; more than merely a means to an economic end. If an organization cannot sustainably produce social benefits to some (customers) without treating others (employees) people as economic means, to defend that organization is to defend the commodification of its employees.