Irrational: "I'm working in a free market world but I should just take what ever the company offers me and be happy"
Rational: "I'm working in a free market, selling my time so my time is also subject to market rates. I just found out a guy who has, IMO, lower market value makes more than me. This means something is out of whack. I view my market value higher than it really is, his lower than it really is, or I'm not earning my market rate even though my company (and CEO!) are"
The only entitlement in this picture is you two giving proxy entitlement to the companies to make even more money by underpaying everyone.
No one said that you should take whatever the company offers and just be happy; that would be ridiculous. In fact, as someone who's weighing multiple offers right now, step one is negotiating with these companies to see who can meet my needs and, after that's met, see who can better meet my wants.
However, after I do negotiate and I decide company X's offer of $Y is plenty enough for me to be happy and then some, there is no reason for me to be unhappy if I find my coworker is making $Y + 10%. If I needed that 10% to be happy, I shouldn't have been happy with $Y.
Now, where such a thing is rational is if I'm not happy with $Y but I don't believe I can get a better offer so I take it and then later find out I probably could have gotten more. In this case, I'm already unhappy about $Y (although less unhappy than $0), so I continue to be unhappy when I find out I might have been worth $Y + 10% but am not receiving it.
So you, like the OP, are assuming everyone posting in this thread about getting more money are petty losers who just go "waaaah! He get's $500 more a year than I do! THAT'S NOT FAIR!". Does that sound reasonable to you? Does it sound fair? Why would you assume that instead of assuming they understand the market and that salary is simply the market value of your time?
First, as a general rule, in any sort of discussion or debate or argument or whatever you want to call it when there are multiple disagreeing with each other, please avoid any sentence of the form "So what you're saying is...." Rarely do I see such a sentence that is not a total misrepresentation of the original point, intentional or otherwise, and attacking that point constitutes a strawman. As a specific example, I'd love to see you point to a single point where I said anything like that.
A much better representation of what I am saying: Let's say that I am making $50,000 and I am perfectly happy with it. More money would be nice, but I do not consider that more money to be at all essential to my happiness. Suddenly I find out my coworker is making $60,000, or even $100,000. It is irrational for me to now be unhappy with the same $50,000 I was happy about thirty seconds ago. This is precisely what both I and junishaun are saying, where you only care about more money for the sake of more money.
If you weren't happy with the $50,000 to begin with, then you have every right to be upset when you find out you could have gotten more. However, this is not the case I've seen represented by most of the HN comments on these various "salary taboo" threads.
>please avoid any sentence of the form "So what you're saying is...."
No, the point of that statement was to break down what you were saying for you because you might not have been aware (and still aren't apparently). The OP was saying the people posting here on HN were whinny people with an entitled mentality. So no, what I said was in no way a misrepresentation. Then you came on defending what he said without pointing out that you disagreed with his application of his theory to HN posters (you still haven't).
So you point out some mythical situation where you think someone would be behaving irrational. What does that have to do with this thread? No one has claimed to be mad about the money for the money's sake so this whole line is a straw man. Unless you (like the OP) are claiming other people here are behaving this way.
>et's say that I am making $50,000 and I am perfectly happy with it. More money would be nice, but I do not consider that more money to be at all essential to my happiness. Suddenly I find out my coworker is making $60,000, or even $100,000. It is irrational for me to now be unhappy with the same $50,000 I was happy about thirty seconds ago.
Again this is wrong. The mythical person was happy because he/she assumed the market rate for what they did was $50k. Now they've just seen evidence that it's actually $100k. The rational response is to take action as they're potentially leaving $50k (or more) of your value on the table. The person's happiness was based on a lie or misunderstanding and the new unhappiness is based on finding out the truth.
You're only going to live so long and you only have so much earning potential. Leaving money on the table for no other reason than some feeling of happiness is the furthest thing from rational.
> No, the point of that statement was to break down what you were saying for you because you might not have been aware (and still aren't apparently).
I understand the intent behind such sentences; I was commenting on the common results, and I still maintain that this is one such case.
> The OP was saying the people posting here on HN were whinny people with an entitled mentality.
I hold that there are three key differences between what OP and I are actually saying and how you are representing it. One, neither of us said that every HN poster is an example of entitlement, but you are claiming that we said that. Two, you seem to be representing our statements as saying that anyone who is unhappy after finding out their coworker is making more is entitled when instead is upset for money's sake, which I have been specifically maintaining to be a case I have noticed rather than a universal. Three, while your "petty losers" case could certainly be an extreme case of this entitlement, it is a straight up misrepresentation to claim that we're putting it forth as the common case.
> So you point out some mythical situation where you think someone would be behaving irrational. What does that have to do with this thread?
I think this is most clearly exemplified by the original article ("That dev's salary is higher than mine") that sparked all of the subsequent "salary taboo" threads. A direct quote from that article:
"Part of me was even angrier because if he hadn’t made this mistake I could be blissfully ignorant and wouldn’t have to deal with this mess."
The HN response? Largely in agreement with the article with very few people, including myself, calling the article out for this and a couple people (including you!) disagreeing with me.
> The person's happiness was based on a lie or misunderstanding and the new unhappiness is based on finding out the truth.
This is he entitlement of which we are speaking; thank you for making it so explicit. If your happiness is tied so intricately to the amount of money you receive, that is entitlement. It would be ridiculous for me to claim that money cannot help achieve happiness, but if you are already happy, finding out you could have potentially had more money should not rationally decrease your happiness.
> Leaving money on the table for no other reason than some feeling of happiness is the furthest thing from rational.
If your definition of rational is "attempting to maximise the amount of money I make" is your definition of rational, sure, but I maintain that is a terrible definition of rationality. For a very obvious example, if you used that definition, we should all seek the opportunity to work every possible minute at the highest possible rate, the rest of our life be damned. After all, we need to get more money without worrying about silly things like "health" or "friends and family" or "enjoyment of job" or anything else that really is just "some feeling of happiness" at the end of the day. Since I don't think that either of us subscribe to this view, I think we'd agree that there needs to be some trade-off between money and happiness.
However, I'm not talking about leaving money on the table at any rate. If there exists money I can obtain, I have every right to go after it. It's being unhappy about the fact I don't have it where we're seeing this irrationality.
>One, neither of us said that every HN poster is an example of entitlement, but you are claiming that we said that.
Excerpt from the original post:
"Reading all the replies on HN reminds me why companies like to outsource. Americans are expensive and have a strong sense of entitlement."
I think you're throwing in the "all" in your response as a back door out of what you and the OP have said: [some of the] people posting on HN are whiners with an entitlement mentality.
>it is a straight up misrepresentation to claim that we're putting it forth as the common case.
If it is a misrepresentation then I'm not sure what this whole thread has been about. Are we discussing theoreticals that are not actually seen anywhere? Then who cares?
>Largely in agreement with the article with very few people, including myself, calling the article out for this
There is nothing to call the article out for here. The guy just found out he's very likely working way under his market value. Now he has to take action. Of course a part of him wishes this uncomfortable situation wasn't in front of him, but to claim he "wants money for money's sake" is pretty judgmental. Do you have some reason to believe he is a petty person instead of a rational one?
>If your happiness is tied so intricately to the amount of money you receive, that is entitlement.
This is illogical. Let me try again; we sell our time for a market price. Of course the time is intricately tied to the amount of money it is worth, otherwise why bother? I have things I'd much rather be doing. I don't want to sell my time. I need money so I sell it at the best market rate I can (complimented with other factors, of course). This isn't entitlement anymore than selling any other product is.
>finding out you could have potentially had more money should not rationally decrease your happiness.
Of course it should. You were happy before because you thought you were getting acceptable value. Now you just found out you're getting ripped off.
If you bought a nice car for $5k, of course you'd be happy about such a great deal... until you found out they actually cost $1k new and you just bought it from someone who exploited your market ignorance to get an extra $4k of your money for nothing.
>we should all seek the opportunity to work every possible minute at the highest possible rate
Highest possible rate within bounds. There are jobs I'm not willing to do for anything less than FU money. But what you're missing here is that a portion of the market value is what you're willing to do. Willing to travel? Then your market rate is higher than those who aren't. Willing to spend every waking moment on the job? Then your market value might be higher than mine because I'm not willing to. I'm ok with that. I just want the best market rate I can get for what I'm offering.
>It's being unhappy about the fact I don't have it where we're seeing this irrationality.
I really think the "irrationality" you're seeing is coming from assuming someone (who ever it is) is unhappy about not getting money "for money's sake". I don't see anyone doing that and don't see that as a valid concept. I think it's about market value and companies using their advantages to exploit people's market rate ignorance.
> I think you're throwing in the "all" in your response as a back door out of what you and the OP have said: [some of the] people posting on HN are whiners with an entitlement mentality.
I put the 'all' into my response because I'm tired of you forcing everything to extremes. I will say in no uncertain terms: some of the people posting on HN are exhibiting an entitlement mentality. Reading all of the posts reveals this fact.
> If it is a misrepresentation then I'm not sure what this whole thread has been about. Are we discussing theoreticals that are not actually seen anywhere?
Once again, you keep forcing things to extremes. Most of life, including this, is not all-or-nothing, yet you seem to keep insisting that this is for some bizarre reason. We are discussing things I have observed that do not happen to fit the extreme case you posted.
> The guy just found out he's very likely working way under his market value.
But for a value that he admits he was already happy with nevertheless. He could potentially get more, but he was happy with what he had before he learned of the difference.
> Do you have some reason to believe he is a petty person instead of a rational one?
The previous combined with the fact that he was unhappy with the amount he received after learning he could receive more. The utility of the money he was receiving did not change; he was still able to perform the exact same happiness-increasing things with it, but now he's suddenly unhappy with it. This is entirely irrational.
> Of course the time is intricately tied to the amount of money it is worth, otherwise why bother?
I said nothing about the time; it is happiness that should not be so intricately tied to money. Selling my time may not be my greatest desire, but if I'm already happy with the price at which I'm selling and find out I could sell for more, my happiness can only decrease if my happiness is intricately tied to money.
> Then your market value might be higher than mine because I'm not willing to. I'm ok with that.
How is this not leaving money on the table for no other reason than some feeling of happiness?
> I think it's about market value
If it's market value for market value's sake, how is that not money for money's sake? If that's not what you mean, what the hell do you mean such that it's still possible to be less happy with the exact same buying power?
>I will say in no uncertain terms: some of the people posting on HN are exhibiting an entitlement mentality. Reading all of the posts reveals this fact.
So again, you're judging some of the people on HN in a very harsh manner based on pure assumptions of your own.
>We are discussing things I have observed that do not happen to fit the extreme case you posted.
I give extreme examples to illustrate the point more clearly.
>But for a value that he admits he was already happy with nevertheless.
Again, he was happy because he thought was getting a good deal. Once he found out he was actually being exploited, of course he was upset!
>The utility of the money he was receiving did not change; he was still able to perform the exact same happiness-increasing things with it, but now he's suddenly unhappy with it. This is entirely irrational.
It's not about utility. He took place in a market transaction by selling his time. He was happy because he liked the arrangement. Then he found out his happiness was based on a lie; he wasn't getting market rate for his "product", far from it. It is not even remotely irrational to suddenly be angry when you find out you were tricked. I'm begging to wonder if you actually know what "rational" means.
>it is happiness that should not be so intricately tied to money.
Fine, and I would say it isn't in this case. Being treated fairly is.
>but if I'm already happy with the price at which I'm selling and find out I could sell for more, my happiness can only decrease if my happiness is intricately tied to money.
But most people are only "happy with the price" when they believe they are getting at or close to market rate. Not being happy anymore when you discover the deception doesn't mean your happiness is "tied intricately to money". Your happiness stemmed from trust and now a betrayal has been discovered. It would be very odd to not be upset.
>How is this not leaving money on the table for no other reason than some feeling of happiness?
I'm not leaving money on the table because I'm getting market rate for what I'm offering. I don't need to get every penny I possibly can, only every penny my offering is worth.
>If it's market value for market value's sake, how is that not money for money's sake?
This is how the free market works. You have to work in your own best interest or you negatively impact others. For example, if you happily donate your time at 10% of the market rate then you've lowered the value of that job and now others may get paid less.
And why is it that you only call out workers? What about Google? They've got billions, surely they could charge less for their advertising? What about CEO's? They make more than they could spend in a lifetime. Why don't you call them out for "wanting money for the sake of money" as if this is the case they're clearly more guilty of it than I am.
