We're talking past each other a bit because we're talking about different things when we say "value".
> What this means in practice is that one might be able to make a judgement that say a software job in a renewable energy company produces more value than software job creating a blockchain (even though that job is paid less), or that social worker produces more value than drug dealer even though that pays less. This judgement may or may not be correct, but one cannot rebut it simply by saying "it can't be more valuable, because if it was then it would be more highly paid". Lots of things are not compensated their true worth, and many things are over compensated.
What I'm talking about is value to one person. For example, if you were the person you were talking about working for the blockchain v. renewable company. If blockhain job pays 150k and renewable job pays 120k yet you choose the 120k job instead, I can say that the extra value you get from working for a renewable energy company vs a blockchain is at least 30k dollars. I can then take that 30k dollars and use that as a proxy for anything else you can get for 30k for the basis of comparison. For example, you have to buy a home with 200 less square feet or you have to send your kids to a different and worse college. The value you place on those two homes or those two colleges is also worth 30k.
This logic works for any group of people as well. The US population as a whole spends X dollars and Amazon and X dollars on climate change
> This judgement may or may not be correct
I'd argue that this judgement can't possibly be incorrect for the individual that makes it (at the time it was made. regret is possible later) and that any other context you try and call it "correct" doesn't provide any insight that can tell you something new.
If money didn't exist as a proxy for value and you were instead compensated a brand new car every year at job 1 and a new house every 3 years at job 2, it'd be a hell of a lot harder to figure out how much you valued your children's education.
The way you're talking about value is using your moral priorities to say what's wrong or right and calling what's right valuable. There is certainly plenty of room for a discussion of good and/or right but I think it's a distinct conversation than what people actually value (as demonstrated by their actions). It's philosophy vs economics.
> You said "monetary value is real value". And it isn't because it's not an accurate measure.
In the economic sense, monetary value is a precisely accurate measure that shows how people valued things in the past.
I think you're talking about what people do with their money and it's societal value (as determined by your ethics) which is, as you say, not an accurate measure.