I think you're looking through one end of the looking glass. There's another. There are companies who tolerate C- teammates and reward them the same or quite c

I think you're looking through one end of the looking glass. There's another. There are companies who tolerate C- teammates and reward them the same or quite close to the A+ teammates. It's where the whole "10X" appellation came from. One person pulling the dead weight around. It's a meme at this point. I've witnessed it plenty in my career. So yes, from your hiring perspective, it's fraudulent for anyone to do anything but give you their 100% at all times. But if you reward the C- guy and the A+ guy the same, I would argue you are not holding up your end of the firing bargain, or at least the accountability bargain. In that scenario, it might be completely rational for the A+ guy to do the math and realize that he does better for him or herself by being two C- performers at two different jobs, each within companies that either don't know any better, or are too poorly managed and not rewarding their star performers. Similarly, there are all sorts of imbalances in the workplace that are not accounted for, and someone might chafe at. Childless employees are expected to put in more hours/overtime/crunches than parents. Smokers are excused for multiple daily breaks. Older people are out for medical reasons more often than younger. Chronic illness is it's own thing. It exists all over the place. On one hand, it's sympathetic and realistic. On the other hand, if you don't have "life" chipping away at your productivity and causing you to miss work opportunities like these others, it's hardly fair if you're not rewarded. I've done the "overemployed" thing, but I try to only hold one W2 position when I do so. I believe that's slightly more honest. At the moment I hold a sole 1099 contract and am involved technically in multiple startups. My conscience is clear right now. If I get bored, though, and unchallenged -- I'll be out interviewing. $0.02. Twice. :)