I've been thinking about a variation of this: The more important for society a job is, the worse its pay. Society needs to be so sure the job gets done, that

I've been thinking about a variation of this: The more important for society a job is, the worse its pay. Society needs to be so sure the job gets done, that huge amounts of redundancy get built in. Society simply can't tolerate workers to make more than minimal demands if the job is important. So the farmers, transporters, teachers, cleaners, garbage haulers, ... are paid badly. If they stop for more than a few weeks, society is doomed. Nurses are also a badly paid good example, doctors are an interesting edge case. Top politicians, bankers, CEOs, a lot of management, ... has low or even negative value. Their incompetence and egoism is a huge cost to society, not only monetarily, but more so in health and well-being. They might disappear for months or even years before we really start to feel the impact. Hence, they make a fortune. IT jobs are somewhere in the middle. IT is a godsend for large scale organization and prediction, but that's maybe 10% of our jobs, and taking away the other 90% probably won't hurt too much. Twitter lost 80% of its staff and it seems to take a while before the hurt starts setting in over there. So while IT is not paid as much as politicians et al, they are paid pretty well. It might fit with your view, too: A society tries to grow moral compasses that make people do important work for free, as one way to build redundance.