IMO there's absolutely something wrong with it, while millions of people don't have access to food or clean water.

Supply & demand is an explanation, not an excuse, and it is a problem that can be fixed (if there's political will).

Well yes, we tried once "fixing" it with communism, which simply dictated values for things like salaries and forcibly assigned jobs. And communist economies fell apart because of the horrific inefficiencies and inflexibilities.

If you want to fix it, I'd ask you this: suppose there are 20 million people who know how to code worldwide. But that if coders were paid the same as bus drivers, there would be 100 million coding positions available worldwide. How do you decide which one-fifth of companies get coders, and which four-fifths go without?

Currently we allocate the fifth to the companies who want to pay the most*, because we've decided that's where they're most helpful in general, because those are the companies building the most potentially profitable products that provide the most economic efficiency (lower prices and/or higher value for consumers). And this is why coders are paid more than bus drivers.

So what's the alternative allocation you're suggesting? To achieve what alternative goal? Because it's not helpful to say "it is a problem that can be fixed" if you don't also provide the fix.

----

* There can also be non-monetary factors (nice office environment, purposeful mission, good vibe with team) but they can be converted into estimated monetary values for purposes of comparison -- it doesn't change the argument

Currently we allocate most talent to unprofitable enterprises. Uber isn't profitable. DoorDash isn't. A lot of these companies will never turn a profit.

It says a lot about Western society that people only really feel incentivized to be a doctor or lawyer or engineer or coder if the money is right. Not about passion, or wanting to help people, or solve a particular societal problem. Just a bunch of individuals on a hedonistic treadmill making line go up.

There are tons of criticisms for the USSR and PRC, the two big examples that come to mind. But within living memory (my grandparents) both countries went from backwater agrarian feudal states to global superpowers. That amount of progress in so short of a timescale is dizzying to think about, and if we want to talk about the human cost of that progress (worthwhile) we should maybe recount the human cost for liberal representative democracy to reach where it is today.

How should labor be allocated? It's a great question. I think personally that having to sell your body to a capitalist in order to meet your basic needs is only a few polite steps removed from serfdom. When it's not regulated it clearly veers in that direction (scrip, company towns, etc.), and the only alternative is for you yourself to acquire/borrow capital and hope to enter the rent-seeking class. An alternative could be to simply meet people's basic needs without the fanfare. Let people work on solving real problems (climate change, carceral system, education, etc.) instead of optimizing ads and telemetry for the latest planned obsolence plastic box. We live in a post-scarcity society where food and clothes are destroyed so that the "underclass" can't at least enjoy the scraps.

"I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein's brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops". - Stephen Jay Gould

Imagine thinking that people making high six figures are the problem. Don't be afraid to set your sights a little higher, or you'll keep making the classic mistake of tearing down the upper middle class.

It is entirely possible to work in tech for a company that does not make any profit for years but still receive big pay checks. I used to work for a company that is at a loss, but we have the "potential" to turn around and i still get paid quite well. How does that work?

It works because supply and demand in the labor market has nothing whatsoever to do with the profitability of a firm.

It's kind of how the price of strawberries this week in the supermarket is determined by the supply of strawberries, demand from customers, and the price at neighboring supermarkets. It's not set by anything to do with the supermarket's profitability.

I mean yes and no. If the supermarket never sells it because they can't make a profit (and it's not in enough demand to be a loss leader that brings people in), then the supermarket won't sell them, driving down demand to the supplier. If that exists for one supermarket it likely exists for others driving down the demand more (even if said demand would have otherwise remained high) .

You see this dynamic in markets fairly frequently and the profitable goods and services will be promoted more heavily. One can get philosophical about what is supply and what is demand, but middle man profitablity is a factor in those things as they're at once a customer and a seller.

TLDR supermarket profitablity definitely drives pricing as well. Just another component.

>> supply and demand in the labor market has nothing whatsoever to do with the profitability of a firm

> [supermarkets]

All supermarkets have to pay the same price to buy strawberries, regardless of their individual profitability.

Normally by convincing VCs that the company is worth the money of your inflated salaries and after X years they will make it back. Not many people out here are investing out of good will.

"Demand" is insanely rich in SV thanks to VCs