This is not why most non-working people don’t work. Mostly it is childcare costs or disabilities.

Fair point, but for most it still amounts to making less than your work is worth.

People are paid based on the market value of their skills, not the value they provide the company.

Which is a breach of the EMH, and evidence the whole process fails. The more the Efficient Market Hypothesis is false, the more employees not having more leverage is a failure of capitalism. If goods are not traded somewhere near "real value", then supply and demand go from being the effective tool capitalists claim to being downright wasteful at best, and Police-Theft at worst.

And for the record, many people ARE paid based on the market value of their skills. Just ask fishermen. It's just still a minority payment structure because companies have no problem manipulating the labor pool, taking short-term losses to keep wages down. If you go back less than 100 years, they were doing it as blatantly as having towns where all goods in and out had to go through them and employees were paid in credit for those goods.

This is the reason unions were invented.

Unions are, and always will be, the small band-aid for big problems. I support them (though I've seen a few shifty ones who used non-voting workers as leverage for benefits for voting ones), but they will never solve the problem. A well-governed economy is one where the unions sit back and go "well shit, we got nothing to ask for because we already have it, and if we ask for more it'll bankrupt the employer". I'd like to point reference again to many classes of fishermen, paid in shares. You got 18 year old kids making $200,000/yr "unskilled" (scallopers, for reference), NOT because there's nobody else willing to do the job for less, but because they're paid by tradition based upon the value they create.