I see so much these days claiming the value you provide determines how much you earn. Facebook is a great repository of this ‘wisdom’.
It’s total BS.
Mother Theresa. Nelson Mandela. Ghandi. Massive value, low remuneration.
Remuneration = ((Value provided/Desirability) x Difficulty) x Strategy
If you want to earn more, yes you need to provide massive vale, but the more undesirable the work is and the harder it is will also determine what you earn, and finally you need to be strategic about it.
Consider Richie Macaw.
He provided New Zealand massive value. Tick.
His job was very desirable. Cross.
His job was very difficult. Tick.
He played rugby. Tick in the New Zealand context, cross in the world context.
Compare him to Steven Adams who chose basketball and will be earning twenty time what Richie earned.
Remember, it’s not just about value, that’s a fool’s way of looking at remuneration.
There’s a tendency to gather information, and more information, and more information, indefinitely if a decision is important.
Your next 40 years will be determined by your next ten years.
A mantra I live by in business is, ‘tolerance is the enemy of excellence.’
Functional fixes are not solutions for existential misalignments.
If you’re buying your lunch from someone, what happens if he’s 20cms shorter than you?
It’s almost certain that what’s being agreed isn’t fully understood.
Don’t be a dick.
Five hundred years ago, Michel de Montaigne said: “My life has been filled with terrible misfortune; most of which never happened.”
In tennis, the majority of the game is spent volleying.
I own a wealth management company called MedCapital