> why is there an expectation of more money that nobody agreed upon?
Sorry, that's a bullshit excuse to avoid having to pay employees.
The very blog post from this discussion explicitly touches the issue of perceived value. Everyone seeks to maximize the value that they generate from their work. That's why salary is the single most important factor in deciding whether a job is worth it's and that is why yearly bonus and salary reviews are the single most important factor in retaining employees.
Why is anyone trying to fabricate this idea that getting paid is not the single most important reason why most of us work?
What? Nobody is arguing that companies should avoid paying employees. How are you reading that?
For the overwhelming majority of jobs, you get paid only what's in your contract. If that number is not enough, fine, renegotiate it if you are able. But employers cannot be expected to pay you more than you're entitled to.
> What? Nobody is arguing that companies should avoid paying employees. How are you reading that?
What? You're making those claims. You're coming with bullshit excuses like "expectation of more money that nobody agreed upon". This blend of bullshit talk doesn't pop up when some unexpected event hits and everyone is suddenly expected to "be a team player", and crunch time hits and the boss expects everyone to "go above and beyond". You better believe this investment road goes both ways. Being a team player means getting a share of all team wins, and a cold slice of pizza ain't it.
> For the overwhelming majority of jobs, you get paid only what's in your contract.
You're talking like yearly bonuses or performance reviews don't happen, and no one receives paid bonuses ever. Why are you pretending that employees don't get compensated by the value they create?
GP's point likely is that, by taking a salaried job, you're agreeing to take a low-risk, steady income. You do that, because you don't want your take-home pay to suddenly drop or disappear because the company had a worse month or quarter, or because you had a worse week. But this cuts both ways - you trade away the risk, you trade away the reward, so if the company has an excellent financial quarter, you're not entitled to any extra money because of it.
What? No, it does not. If I create value for my employer, I better be compensated accordingly. If I don't then my employer is very quick in firing me. I can even be a top performer and get the axe, as the recent firing wave hitting FANGs demonstrates.
You keep your cold slice of pizza. I need to get compensated by the value I created and being forced to join bullshit HR events is not a compensation.
You signed the contract that said “you get paid X amount for Y work or better.” If you do Y+1, then obviously you get paid X. There was no clause on the contract you signed that you got paid proportional to your work, only that you got paid for doing a bare minimum of work or better.
If you believe you should be paid proportional to your work, then do freelancing or have your own company. Just don’t cry over a contract you willingly signed and didn’t read.
Sorry, that's a bullshit excuse to avoid having to pay employees.
The very blog post from this discussion explicitly touches the issue of perceived value. Everyone seeks to maximize the value that they generate from their work. That's why salary is the single most important factor in deciding whether a job is worth it's and that is why yearly bonus and salary reviews are the single most important factor in retaining employees.
Why is anyone trying to fabricate this idea that getting paid is not the single most important reason why most of us work?