While we are at it, the cost of a product should depend on its objective value, not what the market pays.

My point being that sure, ideally it wouldn't be like that, but any implementation I can possibly think of is not viable at all. Jobs are fairly unique things.

> While we are at it, the cost of a product should depend on its objective value, not what the market pays.

"What the market pays" is the objective value.

The job market is a market, and if the job market dictates that the wage is set in part by one's ability to sell themselves to potential employers, then the (job) market is currently setting objective value (wages).

I'm not making a value judgement of your premise. Just pointing out that your argument works as well against you as it does for you.

From a pedantic economist perspective, yes. From a common sense perspective, if a £40 jacket was sold for £200 to someone, then it's still worth £40 even if this person overpaid for it.

Are people with bad information objectively correct? (Everyone overpays illogically for product because of deliberate misinformation, or whatever)

>Maybe pay shouldn't be based on the personal ability to negotiate, which is not a core competency for most jobs

It is and always was, every day on the marked where you had to haggle for the price you think it's worth for you.