Your observation is a very real and widespread social phenomenon. Analyzing the contradiction of 'low-level workers putting in a lot but earning little' from the perspectives of physicality, mathematical nature, continuity, associativity, imagination, and comprehensive thinking, can be explained by multiple systemic factors:



One, from the perspective of physicality and energy-value conversion:


Low-level work is often primarily physical, such as moving, cleaning, delivery, security, etc. These jobs consume linear physical energy and can be repeated, substituted, and trained. However, the most 'valuable' work in modern society is not the one that consumes the most energy, but rather:



  • Can influence system structure (e.g., software engineering, design, finance)


  • Can amplify value leverage (e.g., investment, management, technology)


  • Can control resource allocation or information flow (e.g., government, capital, platforms)


In one sentence: what is given is energy, but what is priced is system control.



Two, mathematical nature and marginal value theory:


The law of marginal value states that value is not determined by the amount of labor, but by scarcity and substitutability.



  • Low-level work can be done by many people, excess supply → rewards naturally decline.


  • High-level skills, resource control, professional knowledge, decision-making power, and so on have scarcity → rewards naturally rise.


Wages ∝ 1/(substitutability × number of suppliers)



Three, continuity and the transmission mechanism of social structure:


The social structure itself is a continuous power network; high-income groups do not exist in isolation but are embedded within capital, policy, technology, information, and organizational structures, while low-level workers are nodes with high mobility but extremely low control.



  • They provide the basic energy for the system, yet cannot participate in profit distribution.


  • Income is inversely proportional to **'decision distance'**; the closer one is to power nodes, the more 'surplus value' they can obtain.



Four, associative: you can relate to similar phenomena in nature:



  • Ant colony: Most ants are engaged in labor at the bottom level, with only the queen ant truly reproducing;


  • Power grid: The bottom-level cables transmit huge amounts of current, but energy pricing is at 'power stations and the market';


  • Cells: The most basic work is completed by the largest number of cells (such as muscle cells), but neurons dominate 'consciousness and decision-making.'



Five, imagination expansion and future social issues:



  • If artificial intelligence and automation further compress the demand for low-skilled jobs, will this phenomenon become more severe?


  • Is it possible for future society to establish a new **'value redistribution logic'**, such as UBI (Universal Basic Income) or labor points system?



Six, comprehensive thinking summary:


This question is a comprehensive result of labor theory of value (Marx), marginal utility theory (Austrian School), control network theory (complex systems), and the laws of technological evolution:



It's not who puts in more that earns more, but who has more voice and scarce control in the system.



Rhetorical questions and provoking thought:


What do you think:

Is there a possible social structure that can ensure basic income for low-level labor while retaining high-income mechanisms that incentivize innovation and management?


Or rather:

Is there a new mechanism in the future that makes 'value creation' and 'income distribution' more proportional?


What do you think?