As I continue my journey as an entrepreneur, I spend a lot of time reading books by self-made millionaires to understand how they think. But there is one specific phrase that keeps popping up in these books—and in the American media generally—that always makes me pause.
It is the common question: “How much is he worth?” used when referring to the amount of assets a person owns.
Coming from a Hispanic background, the first time I heard this expression, it confused me. Honestly, it even produced a bit of rejection in my mind once I realized they were talking strictly about money.
Why? Because in Spanish, our language forces a separation between the person and their assets. We don’t ask how much a person is worth. We refer to the money, properties, or assets they HAVE. We would ask: “How much money does he have?“
Analyzing the Distinction
I was curious if I was the only one thinking this, so I discussed it with an AI. It explained that for native English speakers, the phrase “he is worth” is almost exclusively a financial term. It told me that if I want to refer to a person’s value as a human, I must use different phrasing, such as “how valuable the person is” or a “person of integrity.”
It seems like a small detail, but words shape how we view reality.
Here is where I draw the line:
To me, the term “Net Worth” makes more sense because it creates a necessary separation. It refers to a calculation—something external to the person, like a backpack they are carrying. It is an object, a metric. But saying “He is worth X” is like defining the person’s essence by that number. And for me, that creates a moral contradiction.
The Moral Contradiction
Let’s look at two extreme examples to see why, for me, this language fails:
- Pablo Escobar: For those who don’t know, he was the leader of the Medellín Cartel from the late 80s to the early 90s. He was a narco-terrorist responsible for the deaths of thousands of police officers, judges, and innocent civilians in Colombia and other countries, causing immeasurable suffering.
- His financial “worth” at his peak was estimated at $30 Billion.
- Mother Teresa: She was a Catholic nun and missionary who took a vow of poverty. She dedicated her entire life to serving the poorest of the poor: the sick, and the dying in the slums of Calcutta. She won the Nobel Peace Prize for her humanity in 1979 and was canonized a Saint in 2016.
- Her financial “worth” was $0.
Technically, under the strict English definition of “worth,” the answer suggests that Escobar was “worth” infinitely more than Mother Teresa. And that simply doesn’t make sense.
How can a man responsible for so much death and destruction be “worth” billions, while a woman who gave her life to healing others is “worth” nothing?
To me, using a word that implies “value” to talk about a bank balance carries a dangerous subconscious connotation.
The Potential Impact
Native speakers might understand the context because they have learned it over time, but that person was once a child, and what happens in the brain of a child when they hear this phrase for the first or second time?
Does a child start subconsciously associating a person’s value directly with their money? As that child grows into an adult, does this linguistic programming lead them to judge people based on their bank accounts? Do they grow up believing that the “best” person is simply the one with the most money?
We live in an era where minds are easily influenced. Many people lack the critical thinking to separate noise from truth, accepting simplistic narratives without question. These are often the adults who grew up absorbing the wrong messages.
Personally, I prefer to stick to the logic of my native language, using objective words that refer only to what a person HAS, not what a person IS.
Now I ask you: Have you ever felt uncomfortable with this phrase, or is it just me? I am curious to hear your perspective (you need to register to be able to write comments)
