I squared this circle like thus:
"Value" in the fabric of society does not necessarily correlate with "price" in the market. "Essential" jobs are necessary for civilization to function at all, these have "worth". Any job that can be just paused was probably not very valuable in the first place even if they were paid richly. So, for example, if you're in software, you still need a bunch of devs to maintain the server farms and the cloud codebase, whatever, because these are part of the infrastructure of normal society, like roads and plumbing, but you probably don't need a lot of marketing folk right now.
Deep down, on some level, we know that some jobs are "worth" more than others which is why society flipped to the "essential" economy on a dime. However, when times are good, we like to pretend that we need legions of advertising people because no one wants to be the one that breaks the collective illusion, or no one feels like they get anything out of going against the trend. Its a lot easier for people to maintain the charade of civilization than to disrupt it.
I guess, in sum, what I mean is "the market may not know best but society does, in aggregate, indeed society defines what 'best' is", the only conclusion to be derived here is that the market is not society. One can be a proxy for the other but they're only correlated systems, not causative.