When a person says 'they' it is assumed that person is referring to a particular or specific group of people. For instance if a person says "They've cured cancer!" that person is probably referring to scientists or even a specific group of scientists. I, on the other hand, tend to think a little differently on this subject. When a person says 'they' in that manner I consider that person is referring to the entire human race as 'they.'

It might be that a particular group of scientists got together and figured out how to cure cancer, but how did those people do it? Those scientists could not have done it without the farmers to produce food for them, nor could they have done it without computer programmers to help them with complex calculations. Better yet could they have done it with out a janitor or two? You might think so, but I think not. You see imagine the scientist's working environment without a janitor. Imagine overflowing filthy toilets, trash receptacles overloaded with month old half eaten sandwiches covered in maggots. The stench from the facility would be unbearable, not exactly what I picture when I think of a productive working environment. So it was not just the scientists that cured cancer, it was the group of scientists plus everyone that helped them, literally EVERYONE. If cancer were cured it would be WE who cured it, not just them.

So if the the janitor, the computer programmer, the farmer and the scientist cured cancer why is it that the scientist is 'worth' so much more? That is why do the scientists make so much more money when they, we, need all the others just as much as we need the scientists? You see, in the USA at least, it is said that everyone is equal, but that's not true in practice because everyone has a price tag on their head and each of those heads holds a different value. Some people are worth $5 an hour and some are worth $14 million per year, even though they're all equally important to the operation of the human race as a whole. A CEO might make $14 million per year and most of their employees make around $35 thousand per year, even though the CEO could not possibly run a profitable corporation without their employees. A corporation would not have a help desk position if it were not needed. If a CEO cannot accomplish their goals without their employees then are the employees not equally important to the operation of the corporation? If they're equally important then they should not be worth less, they should be worth the same.

If everyone is equally important then everyone is worth the same amount of money. If everyone makes the same amount of money then why have money at all? Everyone is equal to everyone else, no one is more valuable to the human race than any other person. Since each and every person is of paramount value to the human race as a whole that means each and every person is of paramount value to each individual too. If a person is that important then it is in our own personal interests to make sure that person is able to do whatever it is they do. We live in a world where everyone competes against each other rather than help each other and I find that to be incredibly unhealthy to everyone because we NEED each other. So instead of buying and selling things, buying and selling ourselves even, why not simply share with each other? You need those other people so when you deny them something that they need because they have not the money you are hindering their ability to do stuff and thus hindering your own life which benefits from the things that person does.

It is a fundamental flaw of our society that one person should be worth less than another when both are equally important. If we do not seek out our flaws and aim to fix them then our problems will never cease. Continue to ignore these problems and you will find that your life will never see peace.

P.S. Interesting to note is that a CEO cannot rule his followers without food to eat, but a farmer can farm without a CEO to follow. A CEO cannot rule his followers without a computer program to facilitate spreading his orders, but a computer programmer can program without a CEO to follow. A CEO cannot rule his followers without a mechanic to fix his over abundance of things, but a mechanic can fix things without a CEO to follow.

They need us, but we do not need them. We do not need the CEO as a CEO, but we do need them as an EQUAL member of the human race, we need them to be human, not pretend prophets with millions of followers. THEY do nothing, WE do everything.

This should probably be in the science and technology section.


I understand your point.

Without the farmer, you cannot have food. Without the builder you can not have buildings. Researchers need that and more to function.

However, let me know when a janitor or a farmer can do research. Jobs such as those are never scarce because anyone can do it. As long as you are not physically handicapped.

A person who has the gift of knowledge and credibility (can be in the form of a college, or equivalent) can only do research. Those people are considerably more scarce than the farmer or the builder.

- Fluid mechanics researcher, Mechanical Engineering

It sucks to be on the bottom of the wage scale, huh?

I agree with the sentiment of your post, but not with the logic. No doubt some CEO's are paid more than they are 'worth'...but, were they not there telling people what to do and how to do it, large companies would be in complete disarray. People would do as much or as little work as they pleased and they would each follow their own personal timetables and projects would never come together in a cohesive manner. Managing groups of people IS work, and it is important work.

And of course the janitor's job is important. All work has worth and importance but all work is NOT created equal. And those who spend years training/studying to perform a specific task certainly deserve to be paid more than those who choose work which requires no particular skill sets.

"They" are the ones who keep killing Kenny.

Those bastards!