| Final-Fan said: But price ISN'T constant, that was my point. But never mind, I think the following allows me to bypass this argument completely. You even say that you think the "worth" of money to a person decreases in an inverse ratio to how much they have/make. Why, then, can't the inverse ratio also scale? |
Because the "worth" is judging something.
It's like on a psychological scale when you measure the level of pain. You can do so via brainwaves and through a scale of 1-10.
The thing your argueing i'm not even sure exists... and is caught between to strange positions trying to combine overall value and expectations.
It seems what your really trying to measure is how good people are at purchasing things that make them happy.
How much money increases quality of living... which would seem a ratio based on how much you value said money.
It's not Standard of Living since... most factors of standard of living would be covered by universal access to healthcare and food... and the items used to "judge" standard of living everyone in the US already has.
It's stuff like refridgerators that keep food cold and such... this is stuff everyone can already afford. What out there is so vast and important... and something that not everybody can afford?
Even college educations... while pricey in the middle... are cheap enough in the lower level colleges where either saving or going at a slower pace can cover it.
The only thing "splitting it apart" in Standard of Living is pay is inequality. Which could really only be completly erased by becoming completly socialist.
The only way to get a perfect score on Standard of Living is to have total socialism. (Basically communism but with a government.)
