Like wtf

In the end- for most people not born advantaged or finding advantage in life- such reward is usually found through their traits and habits. That is: people who tend to get paid well for their work are people who have a strong work ethic and/or potential and apply it intelligently, not people who tell you that they will apply a work ethic and/or potential if you pay them to try. The assumption of a work contract is that you will be compensated a set amount for a good faith effort at a job. If you do not like the compensation or the job, you can ask for more- but not doing your best because you think you’re underpaid is a violation of that contract. Ask for more or quit and go somewhere you are motivated to do what you are paid to do.

Unless you are very fortunate in life or very greatly naturally gifted so that your worst effort is as good as anyone else’s best- you probably wont Get very far by holding back at your job. At the very least you made a deal and it’s up to you to decide if you have the honor to uphold your word or not- but if you are capable of doing as well as anyone else’s best while giving less than your best- you aren’t using your full potential. You could be doing more- likely in a job that pays more- so if you CAN actually do better and you want more money- live up to your potential and go get it.

That’s the “bluff” so often called by employers. An employer tends to pay within a narrow range for a given job. If you were actually capable of doing so much better- you’d work somewhere that pays more or get promoted and make more. If you leave and get a better job- you didn’t “stick it to them” and it isn’t “their loss” because all they lost was an employee making X money who didn’t do as good a job as they could. They will hire another employee for X money who if they are half competent or you aren’t the second coming- will perform very similar to how you did.

They might even get someone who has a lower potential and thus values the job more so is willing to try their hardest- and may end up outperforming you who didn’t give it your all.

Now to be clear- rule meets exception. You generally have to take more responsibility to get much more money- in that order. If you work somewhere that has you doing a managers job for entry level worker pay because they keep giving you more work and no money- that’s bad. That doesn’t mean you should half ass your work though- that sabotages you. That means you should know your worth and ask for it.

See- if you REALLY are such a great employee, and you REALLY do a job that requires a great employee or is significantly enhanced by one- you’ll likely get any reasonable raise you ask for if it’s actually in the budget. That’s the bluff and the test. Apple knows that just having that name on a tech resume or upper management resume makes you desirable to other companies. Apple is known in the industry for having high standards, competitive hiring, extensive training, great processes and demanding workflow. A person who can thrive in Apple is generally considered to wear a badge of certified professionalism and skill.

So if you work there- they will pay you lots of money. They know that if you’re anyone worth anything to the company, you’ve got recruiters and the like practically beating down your door and offering up huge incentives to join another company. They’ll offer you money, perks, transfers to different departments, etc. if they really think you’re worth it. Most jobs behave similarly when they are aware they have a critical employee. But also one must be reasonable.

So maybe the executives and shareholders need to stop expecting income growth too. You can only under pay the consumer class in a consumer economy for so long without massive change. The only question is how peaceful will that change be?

There’s no justification to pay a cashier at the store $80k a year. There’s essentially no way that you generate or facilitate profit that much more than any other cashier. You’d have to be some sort of insane wunderkind to warrant that- and at that you’d again- likely posses the skills for promotions if that were the case because they’d want you somewhere in a position to work your magic more and better.

So it’s complex and there are exceptions etc- but anyone who tells me “I’ll work harder....” or “I’ll work to a basic expected level of proficiency”... “if you pay me more.” I’d kick them out on their rear first chance I got because they aren’t the kind of worker I want. Their word means nothing- and what happens down the road if I give them everything they ask for and they then feel it isn’t enough? Are they just going to drag ass and refuse to do their job right unless I give them even more? How many times should I pay them for the job they agreed to do?

They hated him because he told the truth.

@guest1- maybe they do. But what they do and what you choose to do aren’t the same. You don’t make their choices. If you choose to play their game that’s up to you- but you shake hands and say you’ll do a job for $X- that’s an agreement you’re going to do your best. If you don’t want the deal, don’t take it. And you can’t really be mad at shareholders and executives for asking for increasing sums of money when that’s literally what this meme is about- workers doing the same thing- withholding work for money. As we’ve seen with revolutions in the past- often times the oppressed lower class isn’t really about building a better world- they’re not upset the system is bias- they are about bruising a world where they can be the oppressor, and are upset that the system isn’t bias in their favor.

@guest2- story of my life. Lol.

Different guest here, but wanted to say that the contract you guest_ speak of isn't always upheld by the employer, putting the employee in a difficult situation. At my last job, for example, I was hired to do one role, but when I started the job it turned out I was expected to actually do two roles simultaneously. This was not mentioned in the interview or in the contract itself. It caused me quite some stress because suddenly I was basically doing two jobs instead of one, but I was getting paid the same as everyone who was only doing one role. Since I applied for the job because I needed an income to pay rent and food I couldn't just quit either. I did eventually end up leaving that job, especially when I pointed out that I basically do two jobs but get paid the same as everyone who only does one, only to be told it's not in the budget. They just wanted someone (me) to work one of the extra roles for free, instead of hiring an extra person.

I feel like I see this fairly often -- a person is hired to do something, then one day the boss shows up and says "hey, do you mind doing this too?". The person wants to be a good employee and agrees to take on the extra work (and obviously bosses never come and say "I will pay you extra if you do this"). Then the boss sees the person is reliable and next time there's more work they turn to the same person again. Then down the line you have employees who were hired to do one thing, but in the end are doing two, three jobs at the same time, but without a pay raise. And yes, that will make a person feel like they are being underpaid and taken advantage of, and it will definitely lead to them not doing as good of a job, and I think that's reasonable. If a company wants to fill two or three positions, they should hire two or three people, not dump a bunch of extra work on some employee who ends up working on the edge of burnout for minimum wage, which is how it is for many employees.

Look at the absurd $80,000 straw man he used!

@guest3- that is one of the exceptions to the rule I stated- I’ve been there myself- in an instance that actually literally broke the law- but I was young then and needed the job so bad I caved. I was hired as an assistant manager of a location for $X. The day before I started they called and told me to go to another location my first day. I went- and they told me I was needed as a warehouse person, at half the pay, and a completely different schedule that would interfere with my other job and school. I pushed back and they called the DM that hired me and the DM said: “tell them they work it or they are fired.” I didn’t have a choice. I needed the job- so I worked my ass off and after a year was managing the warehouse. I got lucky- I know that won’t work out the same for everyone. And I’ve had other jobs that straight up lied or misrepresented the work.

And they will do that- they will lie. You can’t control that. You can only control what YOU do. You can do the job you agreed upon- and if that’s less than what they want you’ll likely still be seen as a poor worker. You can find another job and quit when you get the chance and just hang in until then, or of course you can be disgruntled and do the most minimal job you can. Either way you are there until you quit, and whatever advancement you get while there as well as your references and possible future networking with coworkers can only be enhanced by giving your best, as opposed to the other way which does what for you? Satisfies some sense of pointless justice?

You’d have to be some sort of key worker for your one person labor withholding to have any serious impact on a business of any size other than a single team- and likewise they are expecting the same of your teammates which means what you hold back on will very likely he put on them to make up. It’s unfair. It’s wrong. So you have a couple choices. Throw a tantrum about it that isn’t likely to get you any closer to things being made right or better for you- or do something constructive that might actually help you. Now- I understand just being over an asshole employer. And if you’ve already lined up another job and are on the way out and decide to just coast to the end instead of giving those leaches more labor- I can see that- but you also still need to think about your team, who’s only mistake was the same one you made- working here- but they may not have an out like you or the guys to go for change, so I wouldn’t do anything that could make things harder for them.

Look man, the world is full of wrong, it’s your choice. But you say: “they break the contract.” Ok- simple example- you tell me you’ll pay me $50 to deliver 4 letters. I show up and there’s 100 letters. You broke the contract. What happens? I tell you that’s more letters than we agreed and I want more. You say- “4-400, what’s the difference? Pay is $50.” My options here are to tell you to stuff it and walk away- or take the job and do it right. If I take your money- I’ve agreed to your new deal. I can’t take your money and then throw your letters in a ditch and say “well- that’s what $50 buys for 100 letter delivery...” unless I want to be just as wrong as you are. Since when did MORE WRONG make the amount of wrong in the world less?

@guest4- I like learning things- and seeing others learn. This is exciting. It’s what they call a “teachable moment.” Now, I know that the Internet loves the word “straw-man” in any debate. It’s an easy way to sound smart and debunk an argument without actually saying anything. Sadly however- I do not think that word means what you think it means. I recommend googling it and reading up. What I used in my “$80,000” example is something called hyperbole. It’s a type of figurative language- a willful exaggeration to a point- the point being that there is a number that is different for any job which is not practical to pay for that job. We used “$80,000” in the example because it’s hard to play semantics with and to most people would be obviously too high to realistically pay a retail clerk in almost any setting.

See- if I said something like “$27,983...” where you live, the finances of the company you work for, etc etc. need to be examined to decide if they actually could afford and justify that. A company with relatively few employees and relatively high income for example could pay employees more and still pay well (but less) to executives and share holders. It’s contextual- but to avoid any such deviation from topic a HYPERBOLICALLY (word of the day for you) large number was used- with the trust that the reader would see that it was clearly an exaggeration.