Monetary Remuneration, Job Satisfaction and The Flat World

"Hey, you don't get paid much here, do you?" A number of times in the recent past, I have heard this comment laced with varied emotions and undertones. Sometimes it asks a zillion questions like 'then what the hell are you doing jobbing here? Quit, move...'. While other times it is clear ridicule 'Gosh how CAN you work for such a pittance and still be a part of us' (those who understand this reference may and for others, it doesnot matter!). And then at times, it is just an awe. 'Oh my god! So if you move (change jobs) you can get paid soooooo much more!!!!'

All of these worry me. A lot. There is no point in explaining to each one that whatever I am doing, I am doing for a reason. There is a tentative road map and I am following it, amending it as necessary and trying to shape my career with advices from all those who matter. And therefore, right now to me getting paid 'more' does not matter as long as I am getting paid to make the ends meet comfortably (Open to interpretations and varying definitions but THAT's the point!)

Can't all of these people (most of whom downright hate their jobs and bitch about it round the clock) see that I am having one blast of a time? Can't they see I am not only happy doing what I am doing but also this work is bringing with it sooo much learning and experiance? Can't they see I get a job satisfaction from doing what I am doing right now? Can't they trust me to have a tentative idea of where my life is going?? Why do they think that earning maximum at each point in time in life is the only sure fire way to maximise the utility of one's self? Who defines this utility? And even if it is defined solely in terms of money earned, for the argument 's sake, who decides which strategy is most appropriate - earning most you can at each point OR compromising for less in the early days to push your pareto frontier outwards at a later point in time?

I am reading a book by Thomas Friedman. It is called 'The World is Flat'. It argues that with the triple (read the book for the explanation!) convergence every individual has to globalise his/herself if he/she wants to succeed in a, now, global arena. Each has to work harder, faster and with a more open mind. And then if I have to globalise as an individual, then I have to first identify my set of preferences, second act on them and third and most important be flexible to amend them according to the rapid changes.

So does it not then boil down to each individual's choice? Sure a push and shove in the right direction is required, for all, once in a while! But who all do I surrender the rights to give it? It seems that everyone arround you seems to want to do that!! Strange but true!