[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?