The problem is that huge swaths of people can do those "most valuable" jobs, so they will chronically undercut each other to a stable salary point.
There is no conspiracy or scheme going on. Most people who set out to become a teacher or sewage plant worker are successful in doing so. Very few people who set out to be investment banker VP or real estate moguls succeed, but we hyper focus on those who do, ignoring (more likely unaware of) the graveyard of broke losers who didn't make it.
On the flip-side, if we had a way of finely grading, say, teachers, then the teachers in the top 1% percentile could likely demand extremely high paying salaries...because 99% of teachers would fail to make this grade.
This argument really breaks down when you consider that it requires a lot more training to become a teacher than an investment banker, and there is a massive shortage of teachers, and none of these factors makes teaching a lucrative career.
Becoming a teacher is far easier than successfully becoming an investment banker. Most people who try end up making teacher territory pay to push paper in a cubicle all day. And they don't even get summers off.
That's no necessarily true since teaching requires a degree and certification, at least in the USA. Also it's an extremely hard job compared to investment banking - the hours are long, you must take your work home, you're usually on your feet a significant portion of the day, and you must function as a social worker and a live performer for a significant portion of the day. Every single day for a term.
And the pressure is enormous, you're in charge of making sure the kids get the tools they need for their life, all while making sure they can survive the arbitrary stuff like standardized testing.
People drop dead in Japan from their jobs frequently as well, regardless of industry. This hasn't anything to do with the job being hard and everything to do with work culture.
I acknowledge that investment bankers have a toxic work culture, but I don't believe the job is inherently harder than teaching, which is unavoidably hard in many ways. Some of the ways are solvable by having more teachers (smaller class sizes, not needing to take work home), but not all of them.
Your first paragraph I interpret as basically saying that the reason things are is because these jobs exist in a labor market, so that's just a restatement of my point that this is a negative aspect of capitalism.
The third paragraph argues for even more market mechanics involved in this labor market which I of course disagree would improve the situation.
Also there's a serious shortage of teachers in the USA which undermines your point imo.
There is no conspiracy or scheme going on. Most people who set out to become a teacher or sewage plant worker are successful in doing so. Very few people who set out to be investment banker VP or real estate moguls succeed, but we hyper focus on those who do, ignoring (more likely unaware of) the graveyard of broke losers who didn't make it.
On the flip-side, if we had a way of finely grading, say, teachers, then the teachers in the top 1% percentile could likely demand extremely high paying salaries...because 99% of teachers would fail to make this grade.