I got that "force multiplier" had to do with productivity, but I didn't get how compensation is supposed to be set as a function of productivity (as opposed to supply and demand, and/or arbitrary rules), or even why it should be. Certainly (and thankfully, for those of us buying their food) a combine harvester driver does not get paid 100x the compensation of a farmer who harvested before combine harvesters were invented (of course the driver neither invented nor manufactured the combine harvester; well, a programmer neither invented nor made computers - or compilers, or most of the ideas they apply.)

I kind of believe, I think not controversially, that compensation results from supply, demand, and a bunch of more or less arbitrary rules which either affect supply & demand or directly affect the price (price controls, visa regimes, etc.) Productivity (value created) sets an upper bound for compensation (well, actually, it doesn't, perceived productivity does; and even that isn't true - building a barely working website for the government for several hundreds of millions of dollars is one of the countless counter-examples), but productivity certainly does not set a lower bound for compensation - competition does. How much labor you save is beside the point.