3 ms·
if companies pay the minimum salary, or "market average" (cost to replace you) isn't it only rational to then give the minimum effort (to not be replaced)? fu
by 5350-uiop-1130 4y ago
if companies pay the minimum salary, or "market average" (cost to replace you)
isn't it only rational to then give the minimum effort (to not be replaced)?
further, the best way to get a large pay rise is by finding a new job rather than "working hard" and being promoted.
- TheLoafOfBread 4y agoI know it as: They pretend to pay, so we pretend to work.
- rightbyte 4y agoJust call it normal effort instead of minimum.
- ChrisLomont 4y agoWith minimal effort expect a minimal career. Don't complain when late in life you have minimal success.
- 5350-uiop-1130 4y ago> "...so a single person is replaceable and it's not even noise." of course, someone who hold this kind of opinion would say that
- ChrisLomont 4y agoYes, it's easy to get an outcome you like by removing context. But go ahead and do minimal work at all your jobs, then report how well that worked for you. Then we can empirically see which world view is more accurate. Of course, crypto boys don't have the best track records of reading reality, do they?
- petra 4y agoYes. Its either finding another job or investing in your skills or contacts or side projects in order to find another job. Invest in yourself. Dont invest in a company.
- antasvara 4y agoI think there's a big difference between market average and replacement cost. The average market value is (in theory) the average person in your field, putting in the average amount of effort. If you're putting in the minimum amount of effort, it's safe to assume that the amount of work you're doing can be replaced by somebody that's less talented than average. As such, you can be replaced for a lower annual salary. Point being is that your replacement value is directly related to job performance. If you're not doing an average amount of work, you are not worth the market rate.