Right, but its like no matter the field, the standard deviation between the pay is pretty low. Sales, programming, project management, manager, account manager. For the average outcome, they all make +-50k with a 150k median. The wages are not being set by economic value except on the top end for programming/executive/higher management. Its being set by the employer based on a base standard of living.

The capital holders are taking all of the excess wealth created

>The wages are not being set by economic value except on the top end for programming/executive/higher management. Its being set by the employer based on a base standard of living.

The fallacy here is thinking that prices was ever or should be set by "economic value". It plays a role, but only as an upper bound; you can't price something that's higher than the value it provides. Many goods/services (eg. food or healthcare) arguably provides infinite value to the purchaser, given that they're required for survival, but I doubt you'd come out to argue that we should reprice them according to their "economic value".

>The capital holders are taking all of the excess wealth created

This feels like a tautology to me, because you're defining "excess wealth" as (economic value generated) - (wages/expenses paid), which is just a roundabout way of saying "profits".

That's one factoring. A different factoring is that the excess wealth is (economic value) - (expenses paid)

And that there's a ratio of profit vs wages taken out of that. That ratio can be larger or smaller. If that ratio is 1, there is no wages, and if it's 0, there is no profit.

The comment is that that ratio is too close to 1.

> That's one factoring. A different factoring is that the excess wealth is (economic value) - (expenses paid)

That factoring wouldn't make sense in the context of the original comment, because it also claims that "The capital holders are taking all of the excess wealth created", which clearly isn't the case because we're not paying everyone $0 in wages.