[indubitable]

Money is a measurement of value that one group or individual assigns to something else. In employment, you're paying for the value an individual provides to a company - not how hard they try. If somebody's giving it all they have and are putting out less value than people who are half assing, then you would be be obligated to relieve the person giving it their all. They've reached their potential and there's just not much there, whereas your less incentivized employees are putting out just as much with a fraction of their potential.

This is also the reason I think things like participation trophies are likely doing more harm than good. Life is and likely always will be competitive. And in competition it doesn't matter how hard you try - in the end the victory is decided by achievement alone. Stephen Hawking is not highly regarded because he's a scientist working against all odds, but simply because he's a phenomenal physicist. If he had been perfectly healthy, he would have still achieved great regard - though perhaps excepting the living Hollywood biopic. Ultimately his merit does not come with the subtext 'for somebody with such a condition' but unconditionally.

[joeblow9999]

how is this downvoted? Unbelievable

[osrec]

Unfortunately people on HN now down vote to show they disagree, rather than just for offensive or stupid remarks. It often means insightful comments that are a bit against the grain fall into the abyss, never to be seen again.