The Aphorism of the Day was:
"It is odd, is it not, that a person's worth to society is measured by their wealth, when instead their wealth should be measured by their worth to society." -- A. Cygni

The thing is, wealth *is* measured by worth to society.

For the most part.

Wealth is the outward expression of what we call *revealed* preferences.

It's easy to say you are for world peace and fair trade and gender-neutral compensation.

But when your dollars are finite, you will spend it on what your *true* priorities are.

See, the money you have (for the most part) is money you yourself earned by meeting the needs and preferences of others with money.

The exceptions are the dependents of the wealth earners. Some of them aren't worth a crap. But if they aren't, they lose their wealth rapidly.

In a quasi-capitalist, quasi-free market system like most Western nations have (since Socialism never works), every exchange is voluntary.

I won't give up the goods/services I produced unless the money you have offered me is worth more, to me.

But you won't offer me the money unless the goods/services I produce are literally worth more to you than the money you have in your bank account.

You may feel ripped off later, if you didn't do due diligence, or if the seller misrepresented their goods and services, but assuming everyone is honest and intelligently considered it, then EVERY purchase should result in both sides thinking they won the exchange.
That's fine.

So if/when every purchase/sale is voluntary, then the person with the most money is the person who actually helped the most people get what they want.
This is the person who saw a demand, and filled it.

But there are certainly roles we value more than others, right?

Teachers. Nurses. Garbage collectors.

We may not respect the garbage collector, but go a month without one, and you'll change your tune.

We value these people. Why don't they get paid more?

Because the guy who gets rich is the one who organizes and allocates goods and services, not the one who actually produces it.

Labor is cheap precisely because it requires low levels of skill, talent, or ability.

Teaching is valuable.
But teaching is a common human skill.
We all can teach.
The value of a really good college-educated teacher is still only marginally better than someone teaching their little brother how make a rubber band slingshot.

So here's the deal: Your salary will always be within a certain range.
The upper limit is a number somewhat significantly less than the value you bring to your employer.
The lower limit is just slightly more than what it would take to replace you with someone almost as skilled.

If I do something for a company that makes that company a million dollars a year, what should my salary be?

Let's say my salary is $900k/year. The company makes a decent $100k profit.

Everybody's happy, right?

Well...

Joe over there can make the company $900k/year doing the same thing you do.
But he's willing to do it for $300k/year.

How long will you have a job?

About 10 seconds. They'd be stupid to keep you.

Let's say Joe is willing to do the job for $780k/year, and can make the company $900k/year.

So now the company can make $120k/year. Will they fire you?

Probably not. Because Joe will need time to work up to making them the same amount of money.

Plus, they know you. They know you don't drink to the point of hurting yourself every Sunday night.
Don't know about Joe.
Or maybe Joe has other problems, annoys co-workers, causes someone to quit who the owner would rather keep around...
You get the picture.

Companies can lose quite a bit if they try to chase after *every* dime of saving.
So as long as everyone else who can do the same quality job as you is asking the same amount, you'll keep your job.

This is why anyone who supports illegal aliens is *actually* evil.

They are happy to have millions of US citizens laid off, or work for thousands less than you should be able to get, at no risk to themselves, to congratulate themselves for their own moral superiority over xenophobes like you.

"But I'm willing to do the job of a CEO for only $3mil/year instead of the $5mil/year they get!" you cry.

Not that simple.

This is a multi-billion dollar corporation. Why would they hand it over to you? What experience do you have? What education? What successes/achievements?

You wouldn't let someone who has never learned to drive a stickshift play around with your rare Porsche 911.

You wouldn't let a convicted sex predator be your daughter's gynecologist.

For you to compete for a job to lower the salary, they have to have confidence you can do it.

So companies are selfish and evil, right?

Well, turn it around.

Let's say you work at one job, and they are willing to pay you $60k/year. Another company sees your resume and says they'll hire you at double the salary for the same job.

99.9% of the people in the world take it

We all respond to incentives.

Money isn't the only incentive. Commute time matters. An inconsistent boss makes people hate their jobs. If you have to be away from your family for weeks at a time, or there is a risk of death, the pay goes up commensurately.

One of the reason women as a group get paid less than men as a group is because women aren't as willing to do the dirty, demeaning, dangerous, or uncomfortable jobs for as low a salary as men are willing.

It all makes sense.

Socialism doesn't.

Don't try Socialism. You'll just make yourself look stupid before you die, and take millions with you.