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.
One of the greatest lies we tell ourselves is that we’re falling behind. That someone else is ahead.
As a young man I associated strength with force; louder voices, sharper opinions, firm lines in the sand.
There’s a strange kind of pride we’ve developed in being exhausted. But even lions, the king of the jungle, rest.
I can't remember a time in my life when I didn't have ambition.
We sometimes believe strength means self-sufficiency — that being independent means being isolated.
We often try to outrun the storm, emotionally, physically, spiritually.
We’re entering an age where machines do our thinking before we’ve even had a chance to try.
In church the other day, the pastor gave a sermon that really stuck with me. He talked about two people.