>What isn't okay (at least to me) is to say to employer 1: "okay, I'll give you my full time energy, give me work to do", then figure things out so you don't ha

>What isn't okay (at least to me) is to say to employer 1: "okay, I'll give you my full time energy, give me work to do", then figure things out so you don't have to give your full time energy (automation, realizing that meetings take too much time, whatever). Then, with that extra time, instead of asking for more work (as you said you would), finding another job. I don't know of many people who give employers their full time energy. They'll give them X hours/day of their time Y days/week to work in some agreed upon venue in line with how other employees work. The idea that someone who does well in an agreed upon role and doesn't need to spend X hours/day of their time Y days/week to perform in line with others should take on more work for the same pay is very managerial. Along the same lines, if I hired an assistant to do something that took me 10 hours/week, and they did it in 5, I would view that positively. On one hand, if I overestimated how much it takes for someone else to do that work, there's a good chance I can find someone else who will do that same amount of work for half the cost. On the other hand, if I can't find someone else to do the work for half the cost, that implies the person I hired is very talented, and I would rather have someone talented/skilled as an assistant than someone who isn't as talented/skilled. Yes, I'm paying the talented/skilled person more per hour, but I'm ultimately paying someone to do something specific. I'm not trying to optimize how much work I extract from them for a given amount of money.