3 ms·
> In the end, it's hard to ignore the fact that society as a whole is "commanding" us to work at the highest-paying jobs available to us It's in my opinion mor
by wolfgke 6y ago
> In the end, it's hard to ignore the fact that society as a whole is "commanding" us to work at the highest-paying jobs available to us
It's in my opinion more complicated:
My first point is that the metric that you are interested in is not maximum salary, but "salary minus costs of living". The highest paying job does not necessarily maximize this metric.
My second point is that companies that offer worse salaries (or are worse in the sense of the metric of the first point) have to compensate to stay attractive. Be it via better working environment (no open plan or cubicle farm), be it by offering really interesting work, etc. I consider this to be a feature.
- downerending 6y agoSure. And net comp is even more complicated, and particular to each person. Some will consider access to wide open spaces valuable, others won't really care. And so on. Even after netting all that out, though, society often "commands" us to work at jobs that seem relatively useless. I suppose you could counter that "seeming useful" is itself a form of compensation. But still, it seems a bit dreary. I don't have any answers. As far as non-monetary comp offered by companies (e.g., more interesting work), the problem is that it's really hard to tell whether such offers will actually pan out. It's very much luck of the draw whether you will get to do interesting work, or perhaps just end up sitting beside someone who is, while you are tasked with something meaningless. Been there. It's very difficult for companies to be credible on this.