Second, there's risk. Capitalist society always allocates most of the reward to those who take the monetary risk, not those who do the work. This assumes that

Second, there's risk. Capitalist society always allocates most of the reward to those who take the monetary risk, not those who do the work. This assumes that having a paying job at all is not itself much of a reward, and that the programmer's take-home pay constitutes no profit for the programmer. But this is wrong, because the programmer would rather have the money than his free time, so the transaction is highly profitable to him. (It's also invalid to suppose that the main human motivation is only to make so many dollars while ignoring all the other relevant context.) Who is it that said "the maintenance of life and the pursuit of happiness are not separate issues?" Another problem with your way of looking at it is that it ignores non-financial rewards. Doing a good job causes an increase in self-esteem (the real kind that results in the creation of value, not the fake thing we call by the same name, where your teacher gives you and everyone else a gold star), and that is a reward. No one else can ever give you genuine self-esteem. It doesn't bother me that there are other people out there with a great deal of money, while I don't have very much at the moment. All I care about is myself, and how I'm going to make the most of my life. The only thing I think about when I hear about people with lots of money is, "if they let them keep their money, we're doing great as a society. If and when I earn lots of money by creating and trading value voluntarily with other people, I'll be able to keep what I've earned by the same principle enjoyed by others who have earned their wealth, and that's good for my flourishing life."