I wasn't trying to sound condescending. I was just pointing out the fact that the premise is a bit flawed.

Time and money have one essential thing in common. Namely, they're both valuable. That's the nature of their relationship, and the reason that they're often used in exchange for one another. But, they're not equivalents. We can see this simply by looking at, for example, investment income. Pure investment income is completely divorced from "effort". In fact, the whole point of capitalism is to separate labor and capital. Marx tried to tie them back together, and his efforts eventually led to the further enslavement of many millions of people.

I think I understand your sentiment that for most people, a dollar represents X number of hours of work, and therefore, each product purchased can be thought of as "costing" some given amount of time. But this is only accurate in the simplest case when one has only one income stream and this income is derived solely from hourly wages.

Perhaps this is the way the majority of people in the world get money. But still, it represents only one way. The relationship between money and labor is correlative not causitive, in that sense. This is a non-trivial point, because when you start with an incorrect premise, you're bound to draw incorrect conclusions.

All this isn't to demean your point that a huge number of people in the world are held in permanent bondage due to nothing but their birth position. It's to illustrate that when you blame money for that problem, you're going to end up advocating solutions that have already been advocated and failed in the past, solutions which were based on the same premise (e.g. communism).