Other than the above though, you're completely wrong. People do have objective value. Some people are more valuable than others. That is just life.
Objective value to whom? Your opening post asks whether people have standards/no standards. And whether someone is objectively below you. Whatever that means.
First, let’s start with understanding the definition of these terms:
Subjective: Based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
‘his views are highly subjective’
Contrasted with
objective ‘there is always the danger of making a subjective judgement’
Objective: (of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
‘historians try to be objective and impartial’
You now claim people have objective value. How so? Because no matter who we are assessing or judging, our life experiences color those judgments. Which in turn means we are making subjective judgments. Pretty much all the time.
Stating that Jessica Alba is above you objectively may be how you feel. But, you are not being objective; that statement is subjective. Stating that Jessica Alba is subjectively above you would be true. Because it's you expressing how you feel.
With pretty much everything we all do in life, we are applying our subjective values to most every situation we face. Based on our life experiences. Whether it's people or politics. What we eat. Where we go. Where we shop. Who we hang with. And in your case, whether you believe someone is above or below you.
Objective is not a descriptor I would ever think of when I think of you given your post history. Your daily perception is colored by subjective slants that inform how you think and how you approach your life. It's innate. And in turn, it affects the threads and posts you make here at LPSG.
But then again, that's how people are. Seldom objective; almost always subjective. Like your thread here.