One of the hardest things for people to understand is that they are not hired or paid based on the value they create in a vacuum, or compared to just anyone else. The value they create is compensated based on how much it exceeds the value creation potential of the next best alternative in their role.
It’s easier to see in sports. A good linebacker works his tail off and has a high injury risk. He creates a ton of value for the team. A mediocre quarterback may work less hard and risk fewer injuries and create only a little value for the team. But the QB is likely paid more.
Why?
Because the next best alternative for the LB delivers about the same value, or just a hair less. While the next best alternative for the QB delivers significantly less value. In other words, it’s easier to find a solid LB than a solid QB. Supply and demand rule.
Even if the LB creates 10 units of value and the QB only creates 6, the next best LB probably can create 9.8, while the next best QB can only create 5. So the QB generates a full unit of value above the next best alternative, while the LB only creates 0.2. They will be paid not on the total value they bring to the team, but the value above replacement (VAR, or VORP – value over replacement player). The QB is a net positive of 1, which is five times greater than the LBs net positive of 0.2. The QB might make five times more, all else equal.
In the real world, there aren’t easily measurable units of value so it’s not just a math problem. It’s really hard to numerically value leadership, upside potential, downside risk, fan appreciation, negative outcomes for the team for signing or letting a player go, etc. But the basic calculous is still being done, albeit more crudely and intuitively, which is why mediocre QBs make more money than great players at other positions.
This translates everywhere in the market.
It doesn’t matter your total value creation as much as how much higher it is than your next best replacement. This means you are best suited to finding an intersection of skills that are rare and hard to replace, in a market that values them.
There are lots of people who are great at spreadsheets. Being great at that won’t drive a high VORP. There are also lots of people who are great at surfing. Not a high VORP if you’re a great surfer. But I bet there are only a handful of people in the world who are great at both spreadsheets and surfing. If you find a market where both skills are valued, being a person with that combo probably makes your VORP very high.
Don’t get mad at this or see it as unfair! It gives you an advantage and the ability to command outsized returns for leaning into your uniqueness.