In short, yes. If a person does not like that amount of money, which is well below a skilled profession, then they should feel sufficiently motivated to devote time to developing a skill. I know that may sound cold, but it is just a reflection of basic economics.
And that is your problem, your basic economics doesn't necessarily need to be the only way that the world works.
Marketable skills should be better paid? Of course. Should it pay 10~15x more to be writing scripts at Google than to be frying burgers at some place? I don't think so.
If you care about people you should care that everyone has a minimum liveable wage, not that some should suffer because they can't/won't learn a high paying skill. What if instead of 10 to 15x a job at Google paid 5x what a burger flipper earns? It's still a quite good salary, incentive enough to not stop people from trying to learn better paying skills and would make the lives of people who aren't at that level a bit more comfortable.
> I sincerely don't understand if this was a jab towards me on some kind of "invisible hand of the market" argument or the complete opposite.
Between those two, it was the former. What I mean is that I don't see that people are obliged (_i.e._ should) trade with each other at all. If they nevertheless choose to do so, I don't see that every good or service should cost the same, or have a maximum difference in price.
