This comes off as a really broad generalization to me. According to what metric is this intuitive? Let’s imagine a situation, since you’ve used teachers and caretakers, where everything is taught virtually and care is given by machines. Are teachers and caretakers still valuable or is it a “bullshit job”? The assumption you have made is that everyone should and does believe that care giving and teaching are more valuable than , say, a dishwasher. How do you make that distinction? If you only had the ability to fund a cancer researcher who has the potential to save millions versus a group of school teachers, which of the two jobs is more valuable? Who makes that decision?

On a smaller scale, as I pointed out before, I have no use for a teacher but I have every use for a great farmer, right now, because I don’t have children. That will change when I have kids as it is so that people with children right now will have a higher value for a teacher than a farm that provides great, grass fed beef. It appears to me that individuals prescribe value, now and over time, and that these values change.

Might society be misguided in its valuing a corporate CEO over a school teacher? Perhaps, but based on what metric? Dollars generated ? jobs created? Education disiminated?