He's saying that since Einstein wasn't a rich man, by the author's logic, he couldn't have contributed much to society.

No, he doesn't say so. The reverse of A -> B is not B -> A or even (not A) -> (not B), but (not B) -> (not A).

The "runny tally" part says something very different than A -> B. It says A <-> B.

contributes -> rich : (not rich) -> (not contributes)... what exactly are you arguing?

Einstein did not contribute to the market, and thus shouldn't be judged by that. You could say he gave his insights away as gifts (or in exchange for reputation?).

The author of the article says "wages represent the value that a worker provides to others". Do you really think Einstein's wage represented the value he provided to others?

People work for all kinds of reasons. Money is just one of them as you yourself allude to when you mention reputation. So wages representing the value a worker provides is clearly nonsense.

They just represent _expected_ value for those able to pay, and it includes all kinds of distortions like immigration controls.