> This is trivially true if you accept the premise that "value of work" is the same as "amount paid" I do not even remotely accept your premise. A short list o

> This is trivially true if you accept the premise that "value of work" is the same as "amount paid" I do not even remotely accept your premise. A short list of jobs that are crucial to modern life that are chronically underpaid: * Teachers * Nursing/care staff * Daycare workers * Janitorial staff * Delivery/logistics workers FAR from an exhaustive list. > However I suspect you reject the market wage as "value of work" Considering how many working poor there are I'd say there's a solid reason for rejection. If people are working full time hours and still unable to meet their needs, clearly something is wrong. > only that inequalities will emerge even if we somehow reset everyone's wealth, and therefore the claim that "Wealth inequality isn't some random thing" is incorrect. This is an utter non-sequitur to anything I was talking about. You assert that value of work is tied to the wealth of the one doing the work. I challenged this by pointing out numerous whole categories of laborer that are and have been underpaid for some time. You assert that this is a subjective measurement. I don't know what to really say here. If doing work that needs doing for the understood full time hours we as a society have stated is not a path to at least a stable life, if not a particularly luxurious one, then what's the point of working? And, more concerningly, why would anyone take up that job that being the case? Nurse and teacher retention right now is horrific specifically because the pay isn't very good and it's a very demanding job, and as a result we have a shortage of both. But we still need them.