For the Time limited hustler who strives for wealth and freedom, you have 2 choices to make

1. Increase the Value of your Time

2. Completely separate the money you make from the time you spend

Pick whichever sounds nice to your ear before you continue reading this thread

I'd like to
1. Increasing the value of one's time is the realm of very successful business practitioners and self employed men

Musicians, footballers, doctors, etc

Wizkid can get paid millions for a couple of hours

Messi gets paid thousands of dollars for 90 minutes on the pitch
But there's a caveat...

In going down this route, one has to be AMAZING at what they do

What's worse?

Even if you're the best at what you do, other people still get to decide what your time is worth...

More from Sabi Boyz Only ⭕🇳🇬

More from Life

“We don’t negotiate salaries” is a negotiation tactic.

Always. No, your company is not an exception.

A tactic I don’t appreciate at all because of how unfairly it penalizes low-leverage, junior employees, and those loyal enough not to question it, but that’s negotiation for you after all. Weaponized information asymmetry.

Listen to Aditya


And by the way, you should never be worried that an offer would be withdrawn if you politely negotiate.

I have seen this happen *extremely* rarely, mostly to women, and anyway is a giant red flag. It suggests you probably didn’t want to work there.

You wish there was no negotiating so it would all be more fair? I feel you, but it’s not happening.

Instead, negotiate hard, use your privilege, and then go and share numbers with your underrepresented and underpaid colleagues. […]

You May Also Like

This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?