This is the fallacy of modern tech-based capitalism and I hate it. The job that I enjoyed the least and where I also did the least amount of work was the best salary I ever had. The value that I added through that job was nominal at best.
Other jobs that paid less felt more challenging and exponentially more interesting. Needless to say that happiness was proportional as well.
I came to terms with the idea of lowering my salary just to have more impact and work in interesting things in cultures that I enjoy. But there's something that feels so wrong about it. Imagine a Corolla being more expensive than a Mercedes C Class. This is the equivalent to that but in the opposite side on the equation.
It doesn't make sense but there's probably little you can do about it. Big tech companies ruined the job market. Not because they pay well, but because they pay too well for mediocre IC and Manager positions that barely move the needle.
> This is the fallacy of modern tech-based capitalism and I hate it
I hate to break it to you but no capitalism (and for that matter no non-capitalism) has ever been structured in a way that would satisfy you. For labor to be compensated for its "true worth" there needs to be a way to accurately judge what the "true worth" of the labor is, and honestly, the person to whom it matters the most is the laborer. This suffers from several problems: 1) most people don't know what they are worth, ofetn aiming too high (dunning-kruger) or aiming too low (impostor syndrome) and 2) even if they did, it's quite impossible to read the laborer's mind, because worth is tied up in different values, that are not necessarily in alignment with the values of the employer (or the state, in the case of non-capitalisms).
I think these days things might even be a bit worse because we have a strong narrative of "do what you love"/"do what makes you happy" in most western societies (not necessarily a bad thing). But there is no corresponding "though may not correlate to what other people want of you, be prepared to pay the difference in price" narrative.
I do think "do what you love" and its cousin "shoot for the stars" get a lot of people in trouble.
Personally, "doing" in all its myriad forms isn't something I'm really capable of "loving." Similarly, "dreams" are more of a crushing anxiety-burden than a source of joy.
I think about this a lot because my younger sister, whose personality was similar to mine, but with more conscientiousness thrown in, took her own life in 2014, while enrolled in a top-14 law school and after graduating from Stanford. I get a lot of the mental-illness platitudes re: that, amounting to the idea that if only society had done a better job of ensuring that she got herself to the brain-mechanic and providing better brain-mechanics she'd be a high-achieving lawyer, passionate about the causes she's representing, today.
I wonder, though. She was not ambitious as a kid, and maybe if people had treated this as her personality and not a pathology, she'd have gone to a worse school, taken an easier path, and been happy and alive today.
Me, I have like, some ambitions, and I enjoy my job at times, but it's all in service of the comfort and security of my family and self. And honestly I think this "slacker" personality is on balance an asset for fatherhood.
I'm sorry to hear about your loss. I'm trying to make the connection to what happened and your comment:
>I do think "do what you love" and its cousin "shoot for the stars" get a lot of people in trouble.
Are you implying your sister was doing what she loved and it got her in trouble? Because the opposite comes to mind when I read stories like this, that perhaps people feel driven to follow the path they feel they are "supposed" to and are worse off for it.
I'm genuinely curious about your perspective but I hope it goes without saying that you don't need to respond if it's too painful.
In her suicide note, which I read six years ago and not since, she branded herself destined for failure and declared her intention to spare her family from the burden she was destined to be. She tried her hand at several careers and I think she didn't come close to loving any of them, and was conscientious enough for this to wrack her with guilt.
If you're told "do what you love" doing something you don't love is failure. But most people don't love work. That's why it's called fucking "work". If you're very ambitious, you do love work, because fulfilling your ambition makes up for, you know, working. If you are neither ambitious nor conscientious, you dismiss "love what you do" for bullshit and get on with your life.
If you are conscientious, but not ambitious - that's the dangerous combination. You can't bring yourself to dismiss people's expectations, so you blame yourself.
So, yeah. Maybe I'm full of shit. Maybe I'm just making up a narcissistic story where she wouldn't have killed herself if she were more of an amoral slacker, like me.
But I just wish there were more of a sense of permission to just shrug, say "it's a living" and live your life.
Thank you for sharing. As someone who scores much, much higher on the “conscientious” scale than the other big five personality traits, what you said rings very true, but you framed it in a way I had not previously thought of.
I wonder if this is worse in the US where Americans find so much identity in their jobs. Regardless, as you said, people need room to just “make a living” and find purpose (and hopefully contentment) outside of one's work if we can’t all be following our passion (if we’re lucky enough to have even found our passion)
> This is the fallacy of modern tech-based capitalism and I hate it. The job that I enjoyed the least and where I also did the least amount of work was the best salary I ever had. The value that I added through that job was nominal at best.
I don't understand what point you're trying to make. There is no fallacy, only a collosal misconception. Salary is not, not ever was, a proxy for happiness. At most, it's a reflection of the employer's willingness and capacity to pay.
Of course a company that makes billions and wants to poach the best talent out there has the means and opportunity to pay a whole lot more than a small company with no viable business model that's burning through cash. Hell, boring institutional jobs on old banks and insurance companies pay handsomely, even though you might be required to wear a suit and tie to churn out that sweet sweet COBOL code.
Salary is not a fun index. Some industries pay more than others, and are more fun than others. This isn't news. Where is the need to spin this a capitalist conspiracy?
Other jobs that paid less felt more challenging and exponentially more interesting. Needless to say that happiness was proportional as well.
I came to terms with the idea of lowering my salary just to have more impact and work in interesting things in cultures that I enjoy. But there's something that feels so wrong about it. Imagine a Corolla being more expensive than a Mercedes C Class. This is the equivalent to that but in the opposite side on the equation.
It doesn't make sense but there's probably little you can do about it. Big tech companies ruined the job market. Not because they pay well, but because they pay too well for mediocre IC and Manager positions that barely move the needle.