Mainstream economics is an ethical theory masquerading as a description of social reality.
I think we can all agree that 'social utility' does not correlate well with wages. Given economic disparity where the rich and the poor are separated by several orders of magnitude, it's probable that 'social utility' cannot map. Given the phenomenon of inheritance, it is even less likely to do so. The flow of money is not only controlled by markets, it also is controlled by those that have it, and the power structures that they can influence. These power structures can be both governmental and non-governmental. IMHO socialists have little to nothing on capitalists when it comes to mapping money onto social utility. They both build extra-market power structures, and are typically blind to their own brands of perversion of these structures. IMO political accountability and the influence of constituents upon their government is the secret sauce. Both Capitalism and Socialism succeed or fail to deliver based upon the ability of their constituents to influence their government. Of course, Capitalism is currently failing us. It's not working for us. Socialism will do the same in these circumstances.
I commonly get the feeling when reading Jacobin that something slightly slimy is happening in my brain; that there's something wrong with the arguments presented (straw men, maybe), but that I can't seem to connect Jacobin's dots well enough to even see if they hold up. mk's right. There's no mechanism for wages to follow social utility, thus it is very odd to assume they do or would.