My comment was written to elucidate why "value they create" is a useless sentiment. For example, none of the paintings in Louvre or whatever museum have any value to me. But they do to other people, so it would be impossible to have a consensus on "value". Some people like strawberries and would value them more than people who don't like strawberries.
The purpose of paying someone is to perform the desired work. The amount paid is the signal to the person performing the work that the work you want to be done should be done rather than someone else's.
The purpose of paying someone is not to provide them with some nebulous concept of value or to make sure they have a minimum standard of housing and fed, etc. Those goals should be accomplished by other means (UBI or some other type of societal welfare system).
Our form of greed-centered capitalism is not some inevitable natural truth. We've chosen to live that way. We can choose otherways. We can choose to pay people to recognize their contributions to society, as opposed to how much they do to enrich an individual. We can choose to ensure everybody has decent living conditions, no matter what to do. We can choose to live vast swaths of humanity in dirt and squalor. We can choose to commit collective suicide.
It's up to us. Right now? It's a point where events are pushing us to consider our choices.
You have yet to provide a formula with which to calculate this amount. And since it's such a complicated concept, I'm going to go ahead and assume it's impossible to calculate.
We can choose some things, but not how a free market behaves. And experiments in non-free markets have not gone so well (see Chile, Venezuela etc etc).
Like it or not, I don't think I have this wrong. Wishing isn't the same as logic.
Even if it could, that value would be so enormous that there are simple economic constraints on what's possible in terms of remuneration. Lot's of people are allocated what are probably criminally small portions of the value they create.
For instance, if the sanitation engineers in a city disappeared, you wouldn't want to be in that city 3 months later. The city's streets would be filled with rotting garbage, and that would be the least of it's problems. Its grey- and black- water processing systems would be long since collapsed. And that city'd better hope that no industrial actors took the opportunity to dispense of troublesome pollutants despite the lack of a functioning sanitation system.
The thing is, despite the critical importance of the guys running our sanitation systems, and the enormous value the environment they maintain confers on us, in my own city, not one of them makes USD300 grand a year. (Or even USD200 grand. You get the idea.) A lot of civilization collapses without them, but they are still some of the lowest paid professionals in all of engineering.
All that's due to the same economic limitations that constrict remuneration for farmworkers. They are absolutely essential. They create enormous value. Unfortunately, the way the system is set up, there is not much in the way of resources to reward them.
We can discuss changing the system, but I doubt most people would like the outcome of that exercise. That would definitely go under "Be careful what you wish for."