Again, something I could probably agree to, but it is interesting that we seem to have to move the frame from the individual up to (the individual's share of) society in order to provide a meaningful answer.

Despite others' somewhat antagonistic answers I really just wanted to explore the reasoning behind the original statement, which I think many people instinctively agree with whilst not being able to convincingly explain why (without referencing other ideas).

Society is a critical part of the answer because without it, there is no "amount" of anything.

Effort has a clear opportunity cost which is why I think a lot of people instinctively agree that individuals should be rewarded based on the amount they contribute to the societal pot.