- I don't think I said that their time has no value. I said that it isn't "valuable", which I meant as their time having low value.
- The fact that they choose it over other things could mean either: 1) Watching YouTube is of high value, or 2) Everything else they could be doing at that time is of even lower value than watching YouTube. I tend to think that it's the latter most of the time.
Your scale is arbitrary, so there is no difference between those two things.
Whatever floats your boat, go ahead and do it. My point was not that you shouldn't be allowed for that to be the most valuable thing you can find to do. My point was that, if that is the most valuable thing you can find to do, then your time isn't all that valuable.
Their time isn't valuable to you. You've used your value system to compile a list of things you consider to be of high value, and those who value doing things you consider to be trite, you've reached the conclusion that their time isn't valuable. But the only valid conclusion is that their priorities are different, not their value of their own time.
Actually, I don't think I ever said anybody is "better" than anybody else. Please... read... my... posts... carefully. What we're discussing is how much someone's time is worth to them.
Now, what my example about doctors and lawyers does get at is that the amount people will pay for your talents provides us with a fair barometer of what the rest of society feels is the value of your time.
These are all examples of how a person values someone elses time, not their own. Even then its not a view of how much they think its actually worth, but really more a question of scarcity and need.
Most of the time, individuals have roughly the same estimation of their time's value as the rest of society does
I'll admit, I chuckled when I read this. How do you measure how important someone feels their time is? What are the units?
I always thought school teachers were considered to be of high value to society, but they don't seem to get paid much.
