[Zetice]

Ideally your incentives get aligned such that you're not spending your enthusiasm on your employer, but on yourself via your employer.

You should be invested in the success of the people who you work for, financially (or whatever you value).

You're a "nine to fiver" if your incentives don't align. That can be your fault, but often isn't.

[camdat]

This implies that accepting a job that pays more, even if it doesn't align with your incentives, is being a "nine to fiver", which I disagree with.

Innate to our economic system is the tension between labor and employer. Us as laborers want a higher share of the profit from our labor. Employers seek the opposite, and "fulfillment" provides them the means to extract it.

Consider the wages of game developers, which have stagnated compared to less "fulfilling" SWE work, because employers are able to supplant higher pay with work that people are passionate about. If being a "nine to fiver" prevents me from falling into that trap, so be it.

[Zetice]

I'm sorry but no, it doesn't imply that at all. Your incentives can be, "Earn enough money to justify spending time on a problem."

[camdat]

> Ideally your incentives get aligned such that you're not spending your enthusiasm on your employer, but on yourself via your employer.

If the "via" here is "by giving me money to do what I want", then I agree. GP is arguing that fulfillment from work is necessary to be an enthusiast, thus the assumption that your response is related.

Even in the purely financial scenario though, aren't the incentives still in conflict? If both you and your employer's incentive is "earn as much money as possible", then you are both vying for the same pool of profit.

[Zetice]

It can be money, depends on what motivates you.

And I never said there wouldn't ever be conflict, though if you fail to see the value provided to you by your employer, that's on you.

[XorNot]

If my employer isn't paying me, then what value are they providing?

[Zetice]

Why wouldn't they pay you?

[halfjoking]

> You should be invested in the success of the people who you work for, financially (or whatever you value).

Bullshit. They are trying to make millions for themselves, not me.

I'm trying to make millions for myself through my SaaS that I work on nights/weekends.

If they want to give me founding ownership of their company then I'll reconsider, but otherwise I'm just going to do the work assigned. I'm not going to be enthusiastic or care if it succeeds. I'll just do the work to the best of my ability, and then save the rest of my energy for my business, not theirs.

[Zetice]

> They are trying to make millions for themselves, not me.

Why not both?

> If they want to give me founding ownership of their company then I'll reconsider

Now you're getting it, though the "founding" part seems unnecessary. If the money is what drives you, then get a cut. But once you do, your incentives will be aligned and if money really was the issue, then you should be motivated to work whatever hours are needed.

If money wasn't the issue, then incentives weren't aligned correctly.

[whoisthemachine]

If you're salaried and you too often work more than nine to five, then you are necessarily devaluing your work. I don't see how devaluing yourself aligns your incentives with the company's incentives, whose incentives are to clearly get as much work done for as little money as possible.

[slt2021]

the current meta game is: you work over-time to deliver more and exceed expectations, then you get promotion and +money

if you don't expect promotion, then there is no incentive to over-work and overdeliver.

This is how modern tech companies get ahead of legacy corps: hire young high energy and high capability folks, and let me compete with each other for tiny pool of promotion money. As a result everyone will overwork, but you have to pay only to a few who gets promoted.