Your whole argument is a tautology. Of course money is a factor in how people live their lives but it is not the ONLY factor. That is my only message. Your last statement is quite debatable. I do not think the creators of angry birds are necessarily living a better life (ie, more valuable to society, admirable, etc) than a humble priest just because they get paid a hell of a lot more. Your view fits perfectly into an economist's capitalistic model but fails to recognize the real world factors such as the irrationality of individuals and difference in personal values.
I wasn't arguing with you that highly skilled people usually are paid better. I was arguing that the opposite is not true. That is, getting paid a lot does not make you more skilled. Logically speaking you are saying if X then Y. That doesn't mean if Y then X. Causation vs correlation.