3 ms·
It's their thing though, right? It's their passion. The author seems to be making a weird argument, to me: If you're working for love, status or meaning (rath
by zxcmx 7y ago
It's their thing though, right? It's their passion.
The author seems to be making a weird argument, to me:
If you're working for love, status or meaning (rather than need)... you should... stop? Morally? Because you have enough money already?
There are poets, painters and golfers who continue their careers long after they achieve financial independence.
I wonder if this author would describe them in the same terms.
"You're too famous, get off the stage".
- skybrian 7y agoWell, the headline poses a question in binary terms about something that's a trade-off. People choose a job for some combination of motives: is the money good? Can you get the job? Do you like the work? Do you think it's important? When money is no longer a consideration, you might want to do different work, or consider volunteer work. Or do less work. It's a rare person who is doing the same thing they would do if they didn't need a paycheck.
- ViViDboarder 7y agoMaybe just take little to no additional pay and try to improve the ratio of pay between levels in your company? Then you can keep at your passion and maybe even improve productivity by employing a happier workforce. I wouldn’t be surprised if some executives do this. I know there are many that take $1 salaries and are compensated with equity, though I’m pretty sure that isn’t quite the same thing.
- WalterSear 7y agoThis would involve the opposite of the competitive instinct being describe here. IME - the type of executives being described here sees everyone else as a competitor. Moreover, the billionaire executives I have met/worked for didn't seem to 'enjoy the competition' as much as they seemed unable to comprehend any other way to live.