Good point and I agree for some roles such for technical AI safety researchers. Being a recent graduate I can see what my EA and non-EA friends can get in the job market and my some of my EA friends are better compensated. It's possible my EA friends are more competent and could command a higher wage but I don't get that impression. For a more solid case study of what i'm taking about: Office Manager - New York EA Hub :  $85,000 - $100,000
Office Manager Salaries in New York from Glassdoor: ~$55,000

That's true, it's more I think it can lead to poor incentives for organization competition and we could achieve the same gradient at a much lower level, closer to candidates 'normal' job counterfactuals.

I'm also proberly more skeptical than the average EA about how good a signal funding is for org impact. Even in EA I would bet a charismatic well networked fundraiser does more for an organizations funding than improving the organization (with this being more true short term and for an equivalent cost)

I agree having these roles filled is still very valuable for the world and would continue to be so at higher wages. My worry is from seeing what candidates next best alternative option is for other jobs. I worry that EA jobs are too good a deal e.g better benefits, better salary and more impact. When one or a couple of those would be enough to motivate someone into that job. As you mention this won't be as true for some types of roles such as operations of computer sciences roles where transfering the higher paid 'normal' jobs is easier.

I don't know wether nonprofit employees deserve more is a relevant question. As that's more subjective and comes at the cost of the organisations beneficiaries (if deservingness is the goal)