You have a point, but it's worth mentioning that the fundamental observation behind the complaint is still sound: incentives are rigged to guide smart people towards pursuits of dubious utility compared to what they would otherwise choose to work on. Let's look at a rough picture of incentives for a new graduate:
1. Helping the poor: $0 (maybe $12k if you count a fellowship)
2. Trying to Cure Cancer: $25k/yr, bump to $40k after 6 years
3. Engineering Medical Devices, Airplanes, etc: $60k/yr
4. Trying to Build the Next Twitter: $100k/yr-$150k/yr
5. Helping Rich People Game the System to Get Richer: $150k/yr, $300k/yr after a few years if successful
I have placed these in decreasing order of social value per my own judgement. Note that salary has precisely the opposite trend. The probability of that particular relative order occurring by chance is 1 in 120. I could add other jobs to the list to drop the probability even further.
In some cases the market is conveying valuable information. If we have enough !Software Engineers, it makes sense to depress their wages as a way of discouraging people from entering those fields. Similarly, it makes sense to encourage smart people to pursue roles with a lot of leverage (in the value creation sense, not the bargaining sense), which is a plausible excuse for sending smart people into finance (not one that I buy, but it's plausible).
But in other cases we can identify the information that the market is conveying and pass judgement with the opposite conclusion. By design, the market rewards those who feed and clothe wealthy people and punishes those who feed and clothe the poor and penniless. In this instance the market's reasoning is transparent enough to judge and few would rule in its favor ("necessary evil" is the best I've heard, and then only in the context of the circular "it's the best system we've tried" argument).
Another negative example would be medical research. Next time someone you care about is sick or dying and has run out of options, reconsider the wisdom of our system in spending ~3% of all medical expenditures on research. Also remember that much of that is governmental -- if the market had its way, that figure would be even lower. The market's reasoning is transparent: a doctor, insurance company, or drug company can threaten to withhold the service or good they provide in order to capture a fraction of the value they create. A researcher can't do that, at least not effectively (their product only appreciates in value once they no longer control it). So they are systematically undervalued and the options that your loved one has are artificially reduced as a result of this.
Market-based incentives have huge problems. The million dollar question (many trillion dollar question) is how to fix them.
1. Helping the poor: $0 (maybe $12k if you count a fellowship)
2. Trying to Cure Cancer: $25k/yr, bump to $40k after 6 years
3. Engineering Medical Devices, Airplanes, etc: $60k/yr
4. Trying to Build the Next Twitter: $100k/yr-$150k/yr
5. Helping Rich People Game the System to Get Richer: $150k/yr, $300k/yr after a few years if successful
I have placed these in decreasing order of social value per my own judgement. Note that salary has precisely the opposite trend. The probability of that particular relative order occurring by chance is 1 in 120. I could add other jobs to the list to drop the probability even further.
In some cases the market is conveying valuable information. If we have enough !Software Engineers, it makes sense to depress their wages as a way of discouraging people from entering those fields. Similarly, it makes sense to encourage smart people to pursue roles with a lot of leverage (in the value creation sense, not the bargaining sense), which is a plausible excuse for sending smart people into finance (not one that I buy, but it's plausible).
But in other cases we can identify the information that the market is conveying and pass judgement with the opposite conclusion. By design, the market rewards those who feed and clothe wealthy people and punishes those who feed and clothe the poor and penniless. In this instance the market's reasoning is transparent enough to judge and few would rule in its favor ("necessary evil" is the best I've heard, and then only in the context of the circular "it's the best system we've tried" argument).
Another negative example would be medical research. Next time someone you care about is sick or dying and has run out of options, reconsider the wisdom of our system in spending ~3% of all medical expenditures on research. Also remember that much of that is governmental -- if the market had its way, that figure would be even lower. The market's reasoning is transparent: a doctor, insurance company, or drug company can threaten to withhold the service or good they provide in order to capture a fraction of the value they create. A researcher can't do that, at least not effectively (their product only appreciates in value once they no longer control it). So they are systematically undervalued and the options that your loved one has are artificially reduced as a result of this.
Market-based incentives have huge problems. The million dollar question (many trillion dollar question) is how to fix them.