I'd argue the huge pay differentials are often because humans are TERRIBLE at judging long term... anything. A pro athlete can fill a stadium at some $$ per seat, yes. If a pro athlete stops playing, what happens? the stadium stops filling as much, we potentially lose some ancillary jobs from decreased viewing population (but given the number of sports stars and the nature of teams, losing one outside of a very few likely won't cause much), but in the long term, what is the cost?

Now let's remove an equal number of teachers as could be paid with that single salary. Even if this is a low end athlete, given teacher pay, you're losing dozen/few dozen teachers. What is the long term cost to students who can no longer be educated, or get a much poorer education (or simply now have far bigger classes)?

I realize there are many holes in this argument as it asserts a lot about how money is distrbuted/what externalities exist, but I see it as one facet.

There are also the more well explored aspects of "we like to lionize celebrity/success" and "teachers don't have much political or social clout given their resources/our prioritization in society" (although this links back to my prior statements about long term value and society preferences.)

In summary, I think there's plenty of reason to hate/feel guilt about it, and work to change it. Yes, the feelings alone do nothing, but if no one is getting angry then certainly nothing will ever change.

A star performer's pay is possible because millions of people can enjoy his/her performance at the same time, paying a relatively small amount of money (say, $80/ticket).

The software that the poster above developed can potentially be sold to a lot of customers with no extra work, so he makes an above average salary.

A teacher cannot teach millions of people at the same time, the limit is usually set at 20-25 students.

A care-provider can only take care of one person at a time, a few during the day.

The value to 'society' of improving a toaster by a small percentage, or the hits to a website by a larger one, are hard to calculate except by a bottom line. Any emotional impact is so indirect as to be invisible. Still exist; but we don't see them so can't count them.

Add to this: one-on-one services are limited by the time and attention one person can put into them - two hands, one heart, 24 hours in a day. Absolutely no leverage at all, in the economic sense. Exceeding that (admittedly large and important) impact happens at some point in less-direct exchanges (economic, technological) and can go up from there geometrically.

So I console myself, as a technician, that what I do affects those unseen people. And if successful, it affects millions, not just tens. It adds up to something important too.

Perhaps, but a natural effect of the way that capitalist economies work is that contributions aren't valued by social utility in a fair sense, but by utility weighted by the wealth of the people to whom that utility is provided.