Your equation leaves out the technological contribution to making the jobs possible in the first place; the innovation, the science / R&D, etc.
The rent is not 90k in that case. The rent is negative, in favor of the US; the US economy has benefited most other countries far more than those countries have benefited it. Most of the world gets a vast free rider benefit from what the US economy accomplished in the last ~140 years.
It's far from clear that the rent would be negative. It's not as if Danielle costs 10x what Deepika costs simply due to the fact that Danielle pays a few hundred rs/month to fund the NSF/NIH/DOD science orgs. Could you justify this claim?
The fact that the US benefits most other countries a lot (primarily due to trade) doesn't mean that anyone collects a rent.
The rent is not 90k in that case. The rent is negative, in favor of the US; the US economy has benefited most other countries far more than those countries have benefited it. Most of the world gets a vast free rider benefit from what the US economy accomplished in the last ~140 years.