I don't know where in "IT" you work, but most of the people that I've worked with have been doing it since the birth of Silicon Valley. And yes, they are being replaced by well-trained Indians.
Also, to your point about value for services. Let's say your analysis IS correct. What if some group or someone was controlling the value? What if having more money meant you could influence the value of these services to YOUR advantage?
Ok. That's a valid question. But lets look at the alternatives here:
1. You've got someone (presumably a group of someones who are also presumably wealthy). That person is manipulating the value of your service to his advantage. But ultimately, his goal is to make money, right? At some point, the result of his labor and the labor of everyone he's manipulating, must be of value to someone else, or he wont make any money.
If he makes 10M a year while underpaying his employees, someone else will look at that and think: "Hey. I'd be happy to make 9M a year, so I'll pay people 10% more for the same job and take his skilled people away from him for *my* profit". Feel free to add in evil cackling and such if you want...
That's how the free market works. With some exceptions (which are generally covered in anti-trust laws), it really does work that way. Competition for resources (which includes labor) ensures that the relative value of everything will end up being appropriate to the "real" value of that good or service within the context of the market.
2. Instead, you have the government arbitrarily decide that "they" (the manipulators above) are being "unfair". So they put in price controls and wage controls. Um... But now you are just having the government decide what something is worth. Which I suppose would work fine except that the value of things does not stay constant. I'm relatively sure that the wagon wheel making industry is not nearly as profitable today as it was 100 years ago. Presumably also, a guy who was really good at making wagon wheel's skills s not as valuable. But if the government had already placed wage controls prior to that change, we'd still be forced to pay that guy as though his labor really was valuable.
There is simply no way for a government to correctly reflect real values of things in a market. It's been tried before. It always fails. There are many things that the free market really does best, and setting relative "real" values on things is one of them that it does amazingly well. Why legistlate something when it doesn't need it?
As to being "unfair"? That's really dependant on your point of view. To me, making someone pay more for something then it's really worth is "unfair". Ultimately, that is what you are arguing for. You are arguing that the employers should have to pay more for labor then that labor benefits them. That's a recipie for economic disaster. In relation to health care, it's still the same thing. People are recieving a service (medical care), that they did not provide enough value back to earn (equivalent to getting pay that is in excess of the value of their work). Sure. You can look at medicine as a humanitarian issue, and there is certainly some merit to that. However, it also does cost money. Real money. Someone's going to have to pay for it. In our current model, you get back what you put in. The more valueable your labor, the better your health care. It's really very straightforward in that respect. Any kind of national (socialized) health care system would require that the result you recieve will *not* be in proportion to the value of your labor. That, while you (and I to a point) may see it as "better", is by definition also "unfair". Anytime you have people paying different amounts for the same thing, it is unfair.
I'm not saying that there's no value to it though. Heck. Like I said earlier. I'd love for there to be a working system in place. However, I'm not naive enough to think that it would require just a minor increase in taxes. I'm also not naive enough to think that it would have no impact on the overall quality of care, or that there would be no increase in costs down the line far in excess of those originally estimated. I would be much more willing to see if our government could find ways to ensure that more people could afford the care that's available, then just blanketly paying for the care. Yeah. It's a semantic difference, but it's critical. IMO, the most important part about any good is that you pay for it directly. You take money out of your wallet that you earned and you pay for the service. That's the only way to balance the system out.
Look at it another way. You "vote" with your dollars when dealing with an industry. A business has the goal of making money. The easiest way to do that is to make a product that people will want and can afford to buy. If you socialize medicine, you take that vote away from the people. We already see reductions in quality of care with HMO systems. You know why? Because once you take the money transaction out of the hands of the consumer, they lose the power to chose. With a fully socialized system, you have *no* power as a consumer. You can't chose to go to a different doctor if you don't like the one you've got. You can't choose a different insurance handler if you don't like the one you are using. Free is another world for "something you have no power over". In this case, you are giving that power to the government. They will decide what the priorities are in medicine. Not you. Not the bulk of the consumers. Once again. Why would you think that the government would do a better job of making sure that the medical field was providing a good range of "products" for their consumers (patients) then a free market medicine system would? There's no reason to expect that result. While you can force it to happen, you lose a ton of efficiency and costs will rise. They always do...