Price-control: By 'Costs of the Seller' or 'Available Funds of the Buyer'?

I.e. When people look at an area's wages, why do they not look at cost-of-living? That's where "money" becomes real!

Here's a truth I don't like; if you don't experience "lack," you can't appreciate "abundance." For example, God: God "giveth abundantly" etc., so people are easily led to believe that God possesseth an infinite amount; but no, every little thing God giveth is a thing that God loseth.

(Lucifer didn't see the loss, and so misled himself-&-others into thinking that God had everything 'in abundance' and didn't deserve the glory ... we'll have lots of debate there ... later ...)

At the 2014 Oklahoma gubernatorial debate, I saw a lot of that kind of thinking in the challenger's arguments---he argued that the incumbent was 'giving no money to "education" (a word whose use is also debatable).' His argument smacked of 'the belief that money rains down on the governor from an infinite source." The incumbent replied with a reminder that the money had to come from "somewhere."

I think what I'm basically asking here is Whether 'price' should be decided by "costs of the seller" or "available funds of the buyer"?