Earlier quoted context omitted.
>software has no economic value until it is put into use This is exactly my point. This ^ is categorically false. >If you could quantify fundamental research's value to the economy It seems like you're committing the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McNamara_fallacy
Please explain how shelfware provides economic value. Imagine I make some wizbang software capable of increasing GDP by 50%, but it never gets used. What value did that bring to the economy? I think you are misunderstanding the fallacy you linked. I've already said multiple times there are multiple dimensions to value. The economy is specifically about goods and services sold, so yes, we should measure production. It…
I'm saying that factory has value - sometimes quite a lot of economic value.
The specific example you chose is actually interesting because in the west we largely do view idled factories as valueless and have shifted to a just-in-time manufacturing philosophy whereas Russia has taken the opposite approach of building in a lot of slack into their industrial capacity so that they can scale up quickly.
The practical upshot of this is that our differing conceptions of value are a large part of why we are no losing the largest land war in Europe since WW2. We simply don't have the capacity to scale production to necessary levels.
This is an aside, though.
>Since this discussion concerns wages, my claim was that economic value addition is the most highly correlated with pay.
Yes, this is still false. It correlates with leverage, of which your ability to give the impression of economic value addition is just one part.