Not a meritocracy, a market. "Meritocracy" implies some kind of value judgement (ex: "they are paid fairly" or "paid what they're worth"). The fundamental question is about the labor market and its efficiency.
I'll argue: your value in the market -- as an experienced engineer worth $230K or whatever ridiculous thing it is now -- is if you can go somewhere else that's willing to pay you $230K+ for your labor. The reason salaries are this number (despite antitrust things like [1]) is that some people actually exercise this option and move to higher paying jobs. And most employment is at-will -- you can leave whenever you want. So the market is at least somewhat efficient in this sense.
But efficiency works both ways. If you think your labor is worth more than what your employer is paying you, then you have to prove it by asking the market.
[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust...
The cause of the inefficiency and "great filter" you're describing is the labor protectionism currently in the U.S.
Theoretically a good programmer has arbitrage via their skills and expertise. If you can get things done people will pay you for it, assuming you're allowed to work in the U.S. (or EU, etc.).