What nonsense! Certainly there will be outliers, but in general people get paid more because they help others more. Your pay comes from other people giving it to you willingly. They wouldn't give it to you unless you were helping them somehow.
I think the confusion is that, as you get paid more, you tend to help people less directly. A minimum-wage fast-food worker is obviously helping people. That's what he does. He probably says the literal words, "May I help you?" a hundred times a day. But he's not helping very many people and he's not helping them very much, and that's why the job doesn't pay so well.
Compare to, say, a chemist (as in chemistry, not the British term for a pharmacist). He's not directly helping people. In his day to day work, he doesn't interact with the customers. But he's helping to create new products and maintain existing products that people want, in a fashion that can be ludicrously indirect but is still ultimately extremely helpful.
Or look at senior management. We like to deride them, but most managers in most companies are useful. They don't help the customers directly, but they help their employees help people, and that can translate into a lot of help in a big company.
Yeah, there are people who get paid a lot to basically shaft other people, but they're not the common case.
In this sense, I'm guessing he's pointing that those who help with more immediate, physically-demonstrated (helping) results are getting paid less. Coming back around, like you said, I agree that jobs (such as chemists) do "help." In fact, he's helping the helper. Yes, as you mentioned too, even though there might be no "consumer good" produced, senior managers can be described to help indirectly, although the clients may not see their actions on the front end. It's a weird combo of perspective and purpose to grasp. Most jobs are 'helping,' whether it is for something or someone; its not a one-to-one process, but often a chain of events that can change order. "The more your job helps others, the less you get paid" is pretty shallow.
Thinking about it more, there's a fundamental limit to how many people you can help directly in a day. There are only so many hours in a day.
If you want to break that barrier, you have to provide your help indirectly in some manner, whether it's shaping an organization for people to work within, or building tools that help them do their jobs, or what have you.
I think the confusion is that, as you get paid more, you tend to help people less directly. A minimum-wage fast-food worker is obviously helping people. That's what he does. He probably says the literal words, "May I help you?" a hundred times a day. But he's not helping very many people and he's not helping them very much, and that's why the job doesn't pay so well.
Compare to, say, a chemist (as in chemistry, not the British term for a pharmacist). He's not directly helping people. In his day to day work, he doesn't interact with the customers. But he's helping to create new products and maintain existing products that people want, in a fashion that can be ludicrously indirect but is still ultimately extremely helpful.
Or look at senior management. We like to deride them, but most managers in most companies are useful. They don't help the customers directly, but they help their employees help people, and that can translate into a lot of help in a big company.
Yeah, there are people who get paid a lot to basically shaft other people, but they're not the common case.