Western "society" isn't assigning "cultural" value when some American guy offers me his own money to build something he wants for himself. He's estimating how much money he can net from the deal after paying my fee, not judging my value as a human being. The same for those who hired me to mop their floors. The people paying me clearly estimated different dollar-denominated benefits to themselves for the different types of work done by the same person.

Yes, the Japanese programmer was talking about how "noble" the jobs are, but Western marxists do the same thing. If his objection was to people's attitudes about the inherent human worth of a janitor, well, I couldn't agree more, thank you very much. I was just as noble a person when I was a janitor, but what people were willing to offer me financially for my work made it clear that one type of work was more financially valuable to them than the other. Paying me for nobility hides a price signal that I can use to adapt my work so that it is of more value to others.

Pay for theoretical nobility ought to mean equal pay for everyone, which is the kind of economic inflexibility that is ultimately self-limiting.

I totally agree that the best programmer can make more of a difference in every way to the world than the best janitor.

HOWEVER- For hundreds (thousands?) of years, money and behaving in a way that is profit driven was reserved for the lowest of what was considered people in Japanese society. "Merchants" (a broader term than our interpretation of it) were seen as barely a step up from the lowest group that we would consider people, the eta "filthy mass" or hinen "non humans".

So that might explain some of why their culture still might not value money like we do.

Description of Chinese merchant class (does anyone have a link to a Japanese focused article?) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_occupations#The_shang_.28....

Non humans http://thisjapaneselife.org/2013/07/03/burakumin-japan/

What is money other than assigning a cultural value? Money isn't separate from the culture and the idea that the amounts assigned should be dictated mainly by that part of the culture called the market is also a cultural value.

Well, without programmers we might live in like the seventies, were computers were insignificant in everyday life and even in most businesses. Still, not that bad. They had nice funk music, way more attitude, and could relax better. (And let's not even go into the sixties, who tons of people remember as a golden era).

Now, without janitors we'd be like in the middle ages. We'd have to clean everything ourselves, everywhere. The roads would be like 19th century Paris or 16th century London. The stench would be unbelievable, plus lots of diceases.

Great comment. And really, neither one is right; they're just different.

Also, even from my western perspective, I can see logic in both positions. Programming certainly requires more skill than janitorial work. On the other hand, it's more inherently rewarding as well (at least to most people). So even outside of cultural biases, if there's sufficient highly skilled labour available, it makes sense for pay rates to equalize (and eventually for less desirable jobs to be paid even more than skilled ones).