Are Prices "Correct"?

From the first note that was played, I was overcome by a feeling of serenity that wrapped itself around me. As the mellifluous sounds of the violins and cello filled the air in the concert hall, everything else melted away and in that present moment, I felt a sense of pure, unadulterated enjoyment. The last piece by Schnittke was extremely difficult to listen to, though, and a sense of relief broke through when the mood of the piece was finally lifted up by the tinkle of the piano. It was a good end to the work week.

But not everyone was as mesmerized as I was. Halfway through the Shostakovich piece, the T'ang quartet was joined by an instrument of a more human quality - light snoring some rows back. A child keeps asking his mother, "Xianzai jidian le?" (what time is it?). And so this illustrates one of the determinants of demand, "taste and preferences" or, stripped of economic language, "one man's meat is another man' poison".

That concert was performed for free (lay language meaning no money was paid, though the opportunity cost was definitely high due to the subsidy), but there were many other forms of entertainment which I paid much more for in the past but never quite enjoyed as much. In the market economy, we hail the efficiency of the price mechanism in guiding resource allocation - but are we giving too much credit to the invisible hand? If I enjoyed the free T'ang Quartet performance much more than I enjoyed, say, a night out at St James (which usually leaves me more exhausted than relaxed) where the cover charge is $15 - then are prices "correct" in measuring our satisfaction or utility?

I am halfway through a book and the writer reflects,

The high point of my life, the thing that brought me fame and acclaim, the thing I was by far the best at, paid less than thirty thousand dollars. But I walk a runway, which requires no skill, and I am paid fifteen hundred dollars for a few hours' work. Then I spend only two years studying business, and suddenly the marketplace says I am qualified to earn $120 000 a year. Four times as much! Without a drop in business experience! Was I really that different a person? It's absolutely wrong to think money is an objective measure of a person. Absolutely wrong. What the market values is arbitrary. Dance was my passion. Business school and runway work were whims. The market says my whims are far more valuable than my passion. But the truth is, what I was striving for in dance, you couldn't put price tag on.

I have been doubting whether wages are "correct" for some time now. As a tutor of a class, you are paid to handle administrative issues of the class, handle paperwork, take note of absences and late-coming, conduct CAS interviews, write up reports of students, etc etc the whole year round. I earn the same amount giving a few hours' work for completing an article to be sent to my editor. Am I overly compensated by the marketplace for a piece of writing that I already feel an immense level satisfaction when crafting? Didn't economic theory dictate that one is supposed to earn less in jobs that give high non-wage benefits because the supply of people willing to work for that occupation is high?

How reliable is the price mechanism?