This analysis fails to account for relations of power in the economy. People in positions of power that are related to money seek to get all the money they can by using people with less power: people are not paid according to their 'productivity', but according to the amount of power they have. That is the raison d'etre of unions.

As individuals, attaining power is its own aspect of life. It is a talent, if you will, of its own.

Attaining power is the result of having the desire and the capacity to attain power: some people have neither, some have the first but not the second, some (presumably) have the second but not the first, and some have both. Some of the last are attracted to money/wealth, but they are found in every nook and cranny of society: government, the military, academia, not-for-profits, the arts, etc.

People who have both invariably consider themselves to be innately superior to any people who do not. Since they are the ones who are most responsible for the structure and sanctioned functioning of (civilized) society, that has always been the most rewarded 'talent' in civilization--based on the 'fact' that they are superior examples of what human beings are 'supposed' to be, the exemplars of 'human nature'.