Yeah, I think that line is a pretty clear indication of why such arguments and the economic theory that prompts them are out of touch with reality. I would say

Yeah, I think that line is a pretty clear indication of why such arguments and the economic theory that prompts them are out of touch with reality. I would say that in reality, there certainly is a much larger supply of people that are considered to be suitable for performing these jobs. However, that they are considered to be 'suitable' for performing these jobs does not mean they are actually capable of performing these jobs well, let alone that those selected are the most 'superb' of the candidates. I can think of at least the following reasons: * those determining whether someone is suitable for a job take into account how much they are going to (have to) pay someone. If there is a large supply of people that consider themselves suitable, then those selling themselves cheaper have a better change of getting the job, even if they are less capable. Pay is easy to measure, skill is hard to measure, so pay becomes the easy yardstick to use. * those doing the hiring do not usually have sufficient knowledge of the skills necessary to perform a job. You underestimate work you're not actually doing, used if you used to do the work just a few years ago. * related to the first: when hiring people, their job-related skills are not as important as how well you like them, the impression they make on you, etc. People are irrational and most interviews are decided based on things entirely separate from someone's capabilities. So of course teachers are not as good as they could be: many people more capable would only become teachers if teachers earned more, if they would be recognized as capable or if they were better at interviewing. Corollary: jobs are generally performed by those only just capable of performing them or by those underselling themselves relative to their capabilities. The latter possibly because they have some sort of passion or appreciation for the job independent of monetary reward or because some form of inertia keeps them there. In some sense a version of The Peter principle. I think such reasoning explains our observations much better than what the OP offers. Another corollary: if you like your job or are good at it, you can earn more somewhere in a job you don't like and are just capable of performing.