So your strategy for discourse is to demean and make condescending assumptions?
As I and at least another have pointed out, you beg the question. Supply and demand based valuation is not an arbiter of fair value, it is simple a mechanism for determining value that some people consider an optimal self-correcting "algorithm". I do not.
There are plenty of people with the skills to become doctors and who would do it not to "enrich myself", but because they would like it, or want to help other people, or like the social status of doing something not everyone can do, and they would do it for no more pay than a grade school teacher or a janitor job that entailed the same amount of work/effort/stress. Sure, if one job was more stressful, or more dangerous, our more distasteful (e.g. cleaning toilets), there would be adjustments in compensation, hours or something else to make up for it.
You will counter that the "free" labor market does just that: automatically arrive at fair adjustments. It does not. Because it is centered on supply & demand of skills -- people with rarer skills can coerce more money out of society. Their price will be bid up naturally at auction.
I counter that that is the wrong auction. Imagine an inverted auction: people (with the same inborn skills) bid for the jobs they want to do. So on the auction block is 40 hours a week as a surgeon (for the first N years your job is to be trained, you are paid the same before and after training), and 40 hours per week cleaning toilets, and 40 hours per week working in the fields (please, at least out of respect for the people who feed us, watch at least 10 short videos on United Farm Worker's feed: https://twitter.com/UFWupdates/media). Whoever bids the lowest wins -- just like bids for government contracts. I'll bet anything that the result will be bids to be doctor will be lower than farm worker which will be lower than cleaning toilets -- i.e. the toilet cleaner will have the highest salary.
To me this latter auction is the true arbiter of fair pay. The more desirable jobs (intellectually, creatively or spiritually stimulating, higher social status) will pay less, and the more undesirable jobs (dangerous, dirty and/or demeaning) will pay more.
We have plenty of people with the skills for "brain" jobs. But capitalism and its naturally resulting symptom, the Mathew Effect, ensure that a lot of smart people never see the light of day. So we would do fine without people who will only do work to enrich themselves. Especially when we have a culture that exalts the common good, and gives social status to givers, as opposed to our current culture that worships takers. Those who have the skills to be a surgeon but won't do it unless they are paid 100 times what a farm worker makes can go ahead and pick lettuce. Fine by me.