I think you have misunderstood; what s&#x2F;he said was &quot;<i>the evidence&quot; that they produce something of value is their compensation&quot;. In other words: if what they were doing were useless, no one would pay them all that money to do it.<p>I think this is wrong, though, at least when the question is value </i>to society<i>. Their compensation is very good evidence that they are doing something of value </i>to someone<i>, but that may be counterbalanced by negative consequences for other people.<p>For instance, suppose I happen to be a very skilled thief, and some acquisitive billionaire pays me to steal great artworks from museums so that he can hang them in his living room. This is a very valuable service for the billionaire, because the museums probably wouldn&#x27;t sell them to him at all, and if they did they&#x27;d be incredibly expensive; so paying me $1M for each theft is a big win for him. And he really, really loves art, and loves </i>knowing that he owns precious things* even more, and he has money to burn, so getting those artworks is easily worth the $1M&#x2F;item to him.<p>In this scenario, I am providing plenty of value (as measured in dollars) to my employer, and my compensation reflects that. But am I doing something of value <i>to society</i>? Hell, no. Perhaps our hypothetical billionaire gets more satisfaction from looking at the Mona Lisa than most of those schlubs at the Louvre, but surely nowhere near <i>enough</i> more to make it better for it to hang in his house than in the museum.