Or just maybe free markets expose the bitter truth. That can take a lot of self reflection to come to terms with. Applies to a lot of aspects to life, eg. career planning, creative endeavors etc.
But at the same time it's true that some vital public activities aren't rewarded by the system atm. Eg. quality journalism, family rearing, open source, etc. Often that's an issue of privatized costs and socialized rewards. Finding a way to correct for this is a really big deal.
I think this is only true when you abstract things away from their spatiotemporal context and treat market information as a snapshot. The art market thought Van Gogh was a weirdo with bad brush technique until after he died and people began to recognize how innovative his work was.
"Finding a way to correct for this is a really big deal."
But aren't you now feeding back to the system? Why would there need to be a financial reward and incentive for everything?
I do realize "contributing free value" is perceived by some as free value a third party can capture and financially profit from" which might the reason for thinking of how to then cycle some of that value back?
Thinking about the three examples I gave, I think it's more that the externalities of not doing these activities aren't priced in.
Tabloid press is fantastically profitable, but fake news over time will erode a great deal of social trust.
Closed source software might be individually advantageous but collectively holds back industrial progress. It's a similar reason to why patents were first introduced for physical goods.
And yes people voluntarily without kids should have to pay significantly more social contributions.
But at the same time it's true that some vital public activities aren't rewarded by the system atm. Eg. quality journalism, family rearing, open source, etc. Often that's an issue of privatized costs and socialized rewards. Finding a way to correct for this is a really big deal.