The Problem With Value: A Key Perspective To Work, Life & Experience

Joined
Jul 21, 2019
Messages
597
Location
Near the Promised Land
I've always found it unsettling when people have expressed the idea that "value" is something one chooses -- but also something one can just have.

When a big YouTube channel makes content it is said that content is deserving of monetization because it "provides value" to people -- a concept that -- when looked at under the hood -- gives the idea that "value" is something one chooses to give. What is value though? If I make the same type of video another person makes in the same way I do not provide the same "value" they do though. What does this imply?

1.Value is often not equivalent or tied to effort, but circumstances. If value was something I chose to provide in the same form as another we'd both get the same "gains" or "accomplishments" for example. It's hardly ethical to say value is in what's put in when different no two people who do the same thing are guaranteed to get the same response, output and so on.

2.Value stands with some as an intrinsic quality, but almost always does the extrinsic matter as well. Don't be surprised if Justin Bieber would not have been a celebrity if born in 1822 rather than 1994. If it's the "value" that carries with it the merit in what comes from a work or action as an intrinsic factor then other things outside would not matter so much. A celeb now would've been a celeb thousands of years ago -- a rich person now would've been rich 5,000 years ago -- someone happy in one place would be happy in another. You can't reasonably proclaim "value" as something so fixed when that actual "value" of something or someone depends also on the things outside of them that judge it, consume it, validate it, etc.

When you argue in favor of those who have some form of success, standing, position or qualification/accomplishment the first thing you should determine is if this was done intrinsically and inherently is tied to effort, as it's morally or ethically concerning to praise someone for doing 'X' and making millions off of it/becoming famous/worshipped/etc. when another also does 'X' too and is shunned or given a platitude about value, effort vs. reward, etc. (while they are doing the same thing but getting less)

This does not have to stand with only finances, but any "social" or purely existential freedoms, actions, choices and so on. The problem may not be that no two things are alike, but that two things can be very alike but one gains extreme advantages while the only is held back with none. I'm not one to say that working hard at something has no value, but the reality is that you the "value" of said hard work is meaningless if your comparison is one doing little work and gaining every advantage to them and others. Value is a word thrown around, but its true meaning seems to only rest on what it means in different contexts. If two people can provide the same thing but one is good and the other is seen as bad, value seems in some ways that it's more extrinsic and possibly shallow too depending on the outlook or characteristics surrounding said value. If others decide my value but I also decide or influence it in ways too then it's the sum of both my efforts and others' approval one could argue, which depends on the context.

So given all of this understanding I would postulate that the one way to discern between "fairer" value in response to what might come from work or action vs. less fair events where some gain lots of advantages with less input but achieve or create "high value" to others then value in some forms could be made universal more. One example is with money, especially in cases where people exclaim that those born in to rich families have "unfair advantages" in life. One remedy to this is to assure everyone would have some money so nobody is truly ever at "rock bottom" by default, other than then with their own decisions/choices in which they would sacrifice fair distribution to their own detriment. When it comes to social advantages and so forth there are plenty of questionable platforms and emphasis on how value is built based on various things both in and out of others' control. Perhaps the best way to have more "truer" assessments of value is to have more healthy and capable people with means, access and resources to all that would enlighten, invigorate and fulfill us? If we maybe get enough value ourselves then we aren't left fighting for any leg to stand on when a crooked system worships some and bastardizes others, all things equal even in some ways between these two disparities.

When you have biased platforms, systems and "opportunity-based arcs" that envelope themselves as useful and advantageous for some while for others they're "optional consumption" at best, it becomes clearer in my view how you come to realize that "unfairness" really is just another form of misinterpreted sense of value. Two things CAN be alike, both in what's "put in" to something and what's "doing it," but one can get negatives while another positives. Clearly we can't objectively use the word or expression of one doing or providing "value" from a largely intrinsic standpoint if what they're doing is the same as what another might be who is not receiving the same feedback (again showing that validation, value and even largely outlook/acceptance is also extrinsic somewhat).

The "work hard to be successful" claims do not often see the pressures of extrinsic determinations on various levels. "Work hard at 'X' to be 'Y'": Was I born with the capacity to do 'X' for 'Y'? Do I want to do 'X' for 'Y'? Will others see me do 'X' for 'Y' and give me positive feedback, acceptance, etc.? Will me doing 'X' for 'Y' even fulfill me? We know many people say they do 'X' to get 'Y' but ironically people will tell you there's no "formula for success" in life. No formula for success? Sounds extrinsic then because if it all came down to us, all checkmarks would be made eventually if we all tried, right? But I've never seen any straightforward, "fool proof" method where one person in one position becomes like another person in their position just by "following the lines" directly. The whole idea that you cannot write some algorithm or formula for "success" seems to heavily align with the idea that "success" or even happiness even depends on both internal and external factors for everyone. "Wrong" place and unhappy? Possible disadvantages. Chose to be born in the "right" place? Probably not. Not saying anyone should give up, but the "locus of control" to a degree is both inside and outside -- our decisions/means to act but also the limitations on how our actions are "handled" or "processed" by way of external factors too, probably for various reasons most could guess from environment/place of being and circumstances therein to physical characteristics to health from top to bottom; possibly more things I'm forgetting here too.

This isn't a helpless post but one that aims to help those realize unfairness and what causes it, and how it can be mitigated. It's possibly good (even if this sounds bad) that some have struggled because then they might open their eyes to unfortunate realizations that systems are flawed, institutions can be destructive and habits and development can be sub-optimal, explaining the dismay and favoritism of some/others and their pros/cons. One of the possibly easiest ways to tackle inequality or such is with greater access to what a society or system measures as a literal "wealth" of traction/standing in economies or societies: money. Even Ray Peat kind of hinted that he possibly likes a politician named Andrew Yang (someone here claimed that at least) who has -- over years -- advocated for the idea of a universal basic income for everyone so that all have some "power" or "financial freedom" in an otherwise chaotic/twisted system of sorts. I mean I can't imagine how everything could be made "fair" in a non-specific context, but at least money is one area where this approach can make more clear sense/be advantageous for the misfortunate, poorer, and maybe largely the possible need for a minimal "ceiling" or "floor" on which finances are to be accessed for societal good to a degree. The entire spectrum of "inequality" as a whole can be pretty exhausting, but perhaps money is a good start to help cover those "life cracks: so fewer can fall through to rock bottom in various ways. Considering poverty is bound to be associated with general health decline (among other bad things more likely) it's probably not unreasonable to first assume that equality or lack thereof specifically is best mitigated with one's first or immediate sense of reach and potential, financially/ as resources but then also in other ways too as we see fit. Since it's always argued that "few control all of the wealth" then maybe it's time no one actually "controls it" -- it just is there possibly as a stepping stone maybe as needed given our different predicaments.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom