> There is certainly plenty of room for a discussion of good and/or right but I think it's a distinct conversation than what people actually value (as demonstrated by their actions). It's philosophy vs economics.
I think this gets to the heart of the issue. I would say that I'm making a philosophical argument that the (classic) economic definition of value is insufficient because ones actions are not sufficient to determine someone's preferences unless you hold their circumstances constant.
> What I'm talking about is value to one person. For example, if you were the person you were talking about working for the blockchain v. renewable company. If blockhain job pays 150k and renewable job pays 120k yet you choose the 120k job instead, I can say that the extra value you get from working for a renewable energy company vs a blockchain is at least 30k dollars
Your logic here makes some amount of sense. I think where it falls down is that if you measure in this way then you can't compare values across people (or groups of people) at all. $30k for one person is not measuring the same amount of value as $30k for someone else. If Person A earning $300k/yr chooses to spend $60k on their children's education and Person B earning $50k/yr chooses to spend $10k on the same then you can't even say that that Person A values their childrens' education more than Person B, let alone that they value it $50k more. The opportunities available to different people are not the same.
I actually feel like this problem is significant enough that one shouldn't use dollars to measure value in this way at all, because dollars are usually fungible (a dollar is a dollar is a dollar) but in this case the measured value is non-fungible. Thus making any analogies using this measure liable to be highly misleading or commit logical fallacies.
Well, in your example person A and person B would value their children's education the same, in relative terms. i.e. what % proportion they are willing to spend.
I think this gets to the heart of the issue. I would say that I'm making a philosophical argument that the (classic) economic definition of value is insufficient because ones actions are not sufficient to determine someone's preferences unless you hold their circumstances constant.
> What I'm talking about is value to one person. For example, if you were the person you were talking about working for the blockchain v. renewable company. If blockhain job pays 150k and renewable job pays 120k yet you choose the 120k job instead, I can say that the extra value you get from working for a renewable energy company vs a blockchain is at least 30k dollars
Your logic here makes some amount of sense. I think where it falls down is that if you measure in this way then you can't compare values across people (or groups of people) at all. $30k for one person is not measuring the same amount of value as $30k for someone else. If Person A earning $300k/yr chooses to spend $60k on their children's education and Person B earning $50k/yr chooses to spend $10k on the same then you can't even say that that Person A values their childrens' education more than Person B, let alone that they value it $50k more. The opportunities available to different people are not the same.
I actually feel like this problem is significant enough that one shouldn't use dollars to measure value in this way at all, because dollars are usually fungible (a dollar is a dollar is a dollar) but in this case the measured value is non-fungible. Thus making any analogies using this measure liable to be highly misleading or commit logical fallacies.