I'm not romanticizing it. I'm saying that it's optimal for me that lots of smart conscientious people get limited job opportunities because then they will do small things to excellence rather than pursue personal gain. This is good for me because I get to experience the results of these. The guy who would be a great engineer, quant, or business leader will end up making rice wine and so I get great rice wine. I don't want to be limited like that, though. I want to be sorted into my zone of excellence and then enjoy the positive externalities from the smart and unfairly limited.

i think it is romanticizing poverty. most poor people don't get the opportunity to do anything to excellence. survival takes precedence

I think it is also an inaccurate view of the world that most capable people drop their passions in pursuit of a career and monetary gain. not only that, but talent is multidimensional, and being a great engineer does not imply making great rice wine under different circumstances

poverty, and lack of social mobility, is largely a curse of wasted potential, not a silver lining of talent molded into artisanal goods

That's true. If you're African, your talent goes wasted. If you're British, the smartest guy ends up working on gov.uk for £40k/year. If you're American, the smartest guy ends up a billionaire.

The "more meaning" business is cope because as societies add more ability to excel, people of ability switch into economically rewarding activities at a high rate.

There's a nice middle where you can exploit them for positive externalities. In the past, through religion (many monks were undoubtedly great researchers) and today through a mediocre (but not awful) society.