2 ms·
But this assumes your only option is employment, which is exactly the opposite of my point. If, as another commenter said, I'm generating $600k of value and on
by smeej 4y ago
But this assumes your only option is employment, which is exactly the opposite of my point.
If, as another commenter said, I'm generating $600k of value and only being paid $300k, it's easier now than it ever has been for me to reduce my effort and generate, say, $450k, and still get to keep $300k of it working for myself. I can reduce my output my 25% without reducing my income.
That's not to say it's easy, just easier than it ever has been, and people are figuring that out.
- sokoloff 4y agoThe other commenter posited $600K of revenue, which is not value. The absolute cap on direct value would be revenue times contribution margin percentage. If the CM% for your company is 60%, they're making a CM of $360K on the marginal $600K of revenue while paying you $300K. If you reduce that $600K to $450K of revenue, the CM becomes $270K while paying you $300K, meaning a rational employer should fire you.
- smeej 4y agoYou're missing the whole point again, which is that by leaving the company, you don't have to produce as much revenue or value for you, yourself, to RETAIN the same amount of money as income. Yes, a company should fire you of you reduce production by 25% and require the same payment. But the whole point is that all these people are figuring out they don't need the company for their income as much as the company needs them for the revenue they produce.