Nope, but someone else would get the money instead of his client. Think about you engage a negotiator for buying a house and he only gets 5% bargain when another one could have gotten 10% - the seller gets the money you'd have otherwise.

No, but the people paying his wages would be, and that's sort of the point.

Bingo.

Not at all, but that's how commodity work works. The provision of the commodity is important, but there's a limited market and superficial or unimportant differences (in traditional marketing, branding; in finance, 75 vs. 100 mcs) determine who gets what share.

What traders do adds a lot of value to society. The difference between 75 and 100 mcs is irrelevant. Ultimately, trading is converging on a circle-jerk of machines throwing numbers at each other, but the world is better off with that circle-jerk, and really doesn't care whether it's Bob or Mark who wins.

Trading is the last commodity job.

However, traders don't make more money than computer programmers or professors because they're more important to society (that's clearly not true) but because of the employer/management filter. For traders, the organization is so sensitive to small differences in individual performance as to justify extreme compensation. Software engineers are worth just as much to the world, but employers still see them as cost centers because, while engineers actually have their employers just as much by the balls, it's not as visceral as it is with traders.

If you think of economic input/output relationships as S-shaped curves (I've dealt with this a lot in exploring convexity and concavity of labor) then trading is an area where the precision/scale parameter has gone to infinity and it looks almost like a step function.

>Not at all, but that's how commodity work works

Then something needs to change so it stops "working" that way.