I think you can argue (and I think this is where she's going) that the schoolteachers and nurses are being fairly priced by the market, sad as it may be, but rhetoric about the tech industry is overvaluing Candy Crush Saga.
Firstly, when you speculate on something like Candy Crush Saga, you're really speculating on what the brand and assets can yield you in terms of the rent gained from its unit services stretching out through the future. The risk is high, yet so is the anticipation of high yield. It might seem so stupid and trivial when seen superficially (it's "just" Candy Crush Saga), but what a brand like that can mean in a modern economy is surprisingly far-going.
Human labor is different because you can't reliably account for an individual productive laborer being there over some prolonged period of time without turnover. Otherwise, you'd be a slave owner, essentially. So, ceteris paribus, some estimate of a worker's marginal value product (marginal physical productivity discounted by the rate of interest) has to be made, which in a real-world economy is of course difficult and never really converging. This provides ample opportunity for bargaining.
Of course, this is all a ceteris paribus condition. State policies, institutional factors and unionization all severely complicate things.
I think my reservations with that are largely about how that interacts with "created" wealth, and whether created wealth is fungible for nurses and schoolteachers, but I don't think I have a well-formed response here yet.