only slightly above the number of jobs openings available. The market cannot absorb them. Because it is the market that always defines what it needs and not the followers of the Theory. The surplus of workers runs into the limits given by the market. The Theory of Human Capital has no answer for this situation.In fact, the limits given by the market are the parameters that are always at work in negotiations between capital and labor. Professional education only prepares workers to have a more satisfactory entry in companies or possibly to get promoted later. Nothing more. Or rather, not yet, because professional education provided by schools is also crucial in exempting companies, in many cases, from the future costs of adjustment and adaptation of workers to their occupational structures.4- Income distribution and the labor market: an unconventional viewUnlike the neoclassical economic literature, which maintains that education is the main factor in workers allocation in the occupational structure and in wage improvement, some approaches concede that, on the contrary, objective labor conditions, expressed by a range of prevailing production manifestations in society, are the main factor.Therefore, it is not the workers individualities in acquired education or in age-related work experience that will determine the final income inequality profile, but rather, given the profile of production technology, the prevailing terms of the types of hiring and employment of labor. These types are referenced by and related to more systemic interpretations of the capitalist mode of production[19].Such factors are determined objectively and concretely by the production process, not the workers innate and acquired individual characteristics, and directly and indirectly influence the conditions of employment and wages and their respective returns in wages and payments. For the Theory of Human Capital, the individual and the collection of individuals (labor supply) have power to establish and define forms of wages and payments. To critics, it is the market itself, differentiated in its various forms of manifestation in the economic space that wields such power.The proposal developed here is to address the determinants of income distribution in society as coming from the labor market itself and engineered and established by it. Thus, it is aligned with the group of critics who go against the understanding of the Theory of Human Capital.The process of determining the income distribution profile is understood based on the organization of employment and labor in the company (or business organization[20]) and in the collection of companies, whether in a region, or in their totality. The various ways in which the organization of employment and labor is present in each company and region are directly and indirectly linked to the ways in which capital, as production relation, is manifested and developed. The more traditional these forms, the less defined the organization of employment and labor; the more modern these forms, the more defined the organization.The two most visible and prevalent forms of manifestation of labor and employment organization in any company are the wage scale and the occupational structure. The former establishes the terms of payment of the work to be performed or already