William J. Hobler, Jr" <bhobler@worldnet.att.net> defines
values as it relates to wealth and then asks:
>...Connecting to several other threads on this list, it seems that we in the
>US place less worth on teachers of our children than plumbers (or any of a
>number of other professions).
What a society pays for services is largely a result of supply and demand
for the output of the work as perceived in aggregate. Teaching attracts
people who want to make a difference and who enjoy shaping minds. In our
society, more people are being prepared for a career shaping minds than
for a career shaping pipes. Partly this might be a reflection of the value
system of those very teachers who are influencing their students choices
or interests in careers.
>Is my logic wrong if I conclude that one of the basic changes that has to
>be made is in defining what things are more worthy than others? I am
>postulating that worth is a value judgement made by people, and that to
>change a community one of the leverage points is this set of value
>judgements.
The value system will likely have a strong influence on the choices that a
society makes. We pay an airline pilot more that a plumber because we
value their skills, not because of the impact of their peformance. If we
paid based on impact, we would possibly want to pay teachers more than we
do! Steamfitters get more than airline pilots because they are scarce
skills.
So I would put forward the assertion that what we have in society today is
the result of our aggregate values system(s). However, even defining it on
paper would be a daunting task. Changing it might be a tad ambitious!
Of course, by sufficiently limiting the community under consideration, it
might be possible to deal with it as a leverage point....Keith
--Keith Cowan <72212.51@CompuServe.COM>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>