> Between a Company executive (a CEO) and a construction worker, who would you say works harder? I am betting on the construction worker. It is a bias to think so, and it is common. There is a reason why.
The way to bust against "all CEOs work harder" are places like Enron, where there is a sense that rewards are being manufactured in ways different from the effort process. Same cannot be said about FAANG companies or even classical industrial companies. Opaqueness skews estimative power. In mot cases the socialist argument against CEO types are mainly lack of bargaining power in the job market (gitgud scrub, not their problem) or that the role is a glorified BS job in the Graeber sense (ufff). The latter attempts to draw the line that jobs of prestige are often jobs with warped payouts relative to value.
> Why does your mom not take you seriously when you are on the phone all the time even if you are making good money by being on it? Simple answer: she doesn't think you are doing anything meaningful because what you are doing seems effortless. She judges you by results, not process. Your process is invisible.
A weird counter to this line of reasoning as well: most of the time parents hate on their children since the desired results are different than what is stated. "Status over money" or prioritizing networking/prestige over effort, is the chief problem of most arguments. "Be a lawyer/accountant" is inherently different than being a doctor or an engineer, and that even if the latter out-earns the former with more skills, the former hold some sort of quasi-power in the form of law and finance. The only way worse than calling this "shallow" is to say that people are inherent Machiavellians. https://robkhenderson.substack.com/p/status-over-money-money-over-status
> Between a Company executive (a CEO) and a construction worker, who would you say works harder? I am betting on the construction worker. It is a bias to think so, and it is common. There is a reason why.
The way to bust against "all CEOs work harder" are places like Enron, where there is a sense that rewards are being manufactured in ways different from the effort process. Same cannot be said about FAANG companies or even classical industrial companies. Opaqueness skews estimative power. In mot cases the socialist argument against CEO types are mainly lack of bargaining power in the job market (gitgud scrub, not their problem) or that the role is a glorified BS job in the Graeber sense (ufff). The latter attempts to draw the line that jobs of prestige are often jobs with warped payouts relative to value.
> Why does your mom not take you seriously when you are on the phone all the time even if you are making good money by being on it? Simple answer: she doesn't think you are doing anything meaningful because what you are doing seems effortless. She judges you by results, not process. Your process is invisible.
A weird counter to this line of reasoning as well: most of the time parents hate on their children since the desired results are different than what is stated. "Status over money" or prioritizing networking/prestige over effort, is the chief problem of most arguments. "Be a lawyer/accountant" is inherently different than being a doctor or an engineer, and that even if the latter out-earns the former with more skills, the former hold some sort of quasi-power in the form of law and finance. The only way worse than calling this "shallow" is to say that people are inherent Machiavellians. https://robkhenderson.substack.com/p/status-over-money-money-over-status
TL;DR concrete deception beats merit/talent.