I still reminisce about my lowest paying job, my first. It was probably the most enjoyable and satisfying. It was also useful, though perhaps not at the top of that list.

It's annoying that so many useless jobs pay so much. But even worse that it's so hard to find a position where being useful is even a possibility.

But they're not going to cancel the contract, because they want the support in case they need it.

That rule must have been made by one of those super-rich people grumbling about how unfair life treats them and how the government attempts to steal "their" money.

https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2012/02/po...

Top paying jobs like CEO are top paying because the supply of trusted people, who boards are willing to hand control over billions of assets to, is vanishingly small. Programming jobs are reasonably well paying because businesses are careful about who they hand their code over to, although not the extreme degree of CEO. And something like fry cook is low paying because those businesses are willing to hire just about anyone.

But we cannot completely discount the effects of desirability. If your employment options are fry cook or oil rig worker, most people would prefer fry cook and thus oil rig worker has considerably higher wages due to the aversion to the job, and therefore reduction in supply at the price point of fry cook. Of course, increased compensation can prompt people to look in alternative directions.

1. CEO pay at public companies is public, so they feel the need to keep up with other companies.

2. The incestuous relationship between CEOs and the boards of directors that set their pay.

CEO compensation isn't tied to performance.

That's just basic supply and demand. Since pay is public, people know how much the other party will balk at, affecting the supply.

> 2. The incestuous relationship between CEOs and the boards of directors that set their pay.

That's just basic supply and demand. Like I said, the people who have that kind of relationship are vanishingly small.

> CEO compensation isn't tied to performance.

There is no pay that is truly tied to performance. Just basic supply and demand.

You misuse economic theory by simply using it to make unsubstantiatable claims pretending that it somehow proves anything as long as you use the right magic words from economic thinking.

It’s pretty easy to figure out. Typically there will be exactly one person the board is willing to trust. It doesn’t matter how they reached that conclusion.

Being the only person in the world deemed suitable for the task gives incredible leverage when demand is near infinite.

> You misuse economic theory by simply using it to make unsubstantiatable claims

It would appear that you’re simply overthinking this. We’re talking about basic supply and demand, not a complex economic theory. It is simply an observation of what people agree to. We call it basic because it doesn’t represent anything more.

I refer to what was written above. The only "thinking" I can see on your side is how to prolong a non-argument - you just throw out random stuff, going for quantity and endless repetition, but there is not a coherent recognizable thought. Nice try, but I'd say after your first reply it turned into trolling. You are pretty good at saying a lot without saying anything at all though, I give you that much.

Board Member: "Why are you paying your brother $500k to be your assistant?. Surely an assistant shouldn't make that much money."

CEO: "I really want my brother to do it, and since I only have 1 brother it's just basic supply and demand."

You can basically frame any human interaction in terms of supply and demand, but it's not really useful to do so. And it's certainly not what most of us have in mind when we talk about "basic supply and demand".

Worthless in what way? Supply and demand is far easier to write than this long-winded explanation I have ended up giving to explain what it means. That seems well worthwhile, at least when in company who understand the meaning of the term. It is not like it is some grand unified theory of economics, if that is what you were hoping for.

> You can basically frame any human interaction in terms of supply and demand

Absolutely. All interaction has some cost, and supply and demand observes the willingness of all parties to accept that cost. That is exactly what supply and demand is all about.

> And it's certainly not what most of us have in mind when we talk about "basic supply and demand"

What is it that most of you have in mind? Supply, by definition, is the quantity of a product available at any price. Demand, by definition, is the desire and willingness to pay a price. Supply and demand is simply the observation of both and how they interact with each other. I am honestly unsure of what else you could think it means?

Obviously when the workers have very few or no alternatives, the effect will be minimal.

But I know people who dropped out of college courses that provided a good chance of a middle-class income for a career that fulfilled them more, despite paying like crap. So the effect exists.

Weird. I share this experience. My first tech job was really great, I was constantly doing interesting things, actively making things better for everybody all the time, really like all my colleagues, it was part time, and I made a pittance.

I was on $100K for doing a similar amount of depressingly simple or "easy" work, while being surrounded by people who felt or at least appeared stuck.

It seems like a dream but I also got really demotivated and my sharp skills quickly became stale and then one day I realised I didn't care enough to upskill again.

The job became more about appearance and saying the right things, showing your face in the right meetings, and claiming recognition for other people's work.

I've now shelved that career. The money wasn't worth the feeling of guilt or missing out. I think the hardest part was knowing I was getting paid double than people who worked 3X harder.

I honestly really enjoyed that job - it was fun working with great people doing a job of the right level of complexity and mental stimulation.

The next day my wife was fired.

The day after that, my old boss offered me a raise if I would stick around.

I did both jobs simultaneously for six months.

In my entire life nothing has been more lucrative than this. I've tried investing in stocks, bonds, and real estate. Nothing has been more lucrative than double-dipping.

The thing that's so bizarre, is that it also seemed to make me a better employee. I wasn't trying to be a scofflaw, I just kinda fell into it (due to my wife being fired). I found that things I learned from Job One made me better at Job Two, and vice versa.

I think a big part of the reason that this is, is because a lot of tech jobs are basically "human insurance policies." For instance, my employer paid me because I'm an expert in an obscure software program. So there weeks when I was busy as hell, but there were also weeks when I was basically there in case something broke.

I founded a forum on Reddit dedicated to this, it's called WWPGD. (A tip of the hat to Peter Gibbons from 'Office Space')

So I did both jobs, the old and the new, simultaneously.

The initial plan was that I'd do it for a couple of weeks or a month. I was just trying to cover my wife's income until she found a new gig.

Lo and behold, doing two jobs simultaneously is surprisingly easy.

And Lord is it lucrative.

I turned one laptop into a virtual machine, and then I loaded that vm onto the other laptop.

So I had two jobs, one office, and one laptop. One job was remote, one was onsite.

When leading, my default is to give people space. Unfortunately, that means if someone needs micro-managing I'm typically not the right person. This is different than mentoring, which I enjoy (not sure if I'm any good at it though ;) ). And obviously, I'm always there for questions. What I don't understand is how leads/managers have the time micromanage people. If a person can't trust their team to do a good job, then they should not be leading a team.

> but they started blaming me personally every time I pointed out any ways of improving the way we do things.

Even if it was your fault, this is wrong. All problems are the leads problems. The lead should be asking him/herself why you went around them to the manager? The manager should be asking the lead the same question.

I'm so happy I don't work in a big company anymore.

I was on $100K for doing a similar amount of depressingly simple or "easy" work, while being surrounded by people who felt or at least appeared stuck.

It seems like a dream but I also got really demotivated and my sharp skills quickly became stale and then one day I realised I didn't care enough to upskill again.

The job became more about appearance and saying the right things, showing your face in the right meetings, and claiming recognition for other people's work.

I've now shelved that career. The money wasn't worth the feeling of guilt or missing out. I think the hardest part was knowing I was getting paid double than people who worked 3X harder.

I've been on a job search for some time now in the same field which you're employed. I've had a number of interviews but I think things have stalled a few times when it's come to salary negotiation. I've been approaching things with the theory that the more I'm compensated the less likely I'd be in the situation you've described and the one I find myself currently in. So, I've been asking well above market rate in the hopes that if I find a taker I'd force the employer's hand in tasking me with non bullshit work.

Your story shoots that theory all to hell.

To me using cryptos as a derivative of existing fiat is the weak link in the chain as the anonymity all but goes away. And when that goes away the concerns you've stated reappear because decentralization is gone.