>>>>>>On the other hand, $200K combined income is about 4-5X as much as the national average.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If most people get by on a small fraction of that, it is no major stretch of the imagination to consider that a lot of money.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And this means that other people who don't work as hard a I do are entitled to a piece of what I have earned because?????????
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm not sure of the logic that says that anyone who earns less than you (or I) doesn't work as hard. There are jobs where people work very hard for much lower salaries. There are people out there who work more than one job to make ends meet and still earn less than you or I.
>>>>
>>>>Few exceptions do not abolish the rule: one should work harder to earn more. Would you agree that this rule exists?
>>>
>>>Sometimes. The relationship between working harder and earning more is only valid if you are comparing like jobs. My guess (and I admit it's only a guess) is that there are far more people working at jobs that pay less than software development than the other way around. That's not to say there aren't low paying software jobs too, but there is a lot of work out there that pays minimum wage or a little above. Many people work hard at those jobs. How do we compare who is working harder than whom. How about a lawyer, for example who works maybe around the same hours as Marcia, but earns far more. Is he/she really working so much harder than Marcia? Probably not, but the lawyer is in a much more lucrative area.
>>>
>>>I enjoy my work in software. I can work long hours sometimes, but do I consider it 'harder' work than the coal miner who works fewer hours, earns less and destroys his lungs in the process?
>>>
>>>I'm not convinced that the exceptions are as few as you are, and I have no way to guage who is working harder than whom. I don't believe that simply counting hours is a valid way to look at it.
>>
>>You oversimplify the idea of working harder. It includes preparation, i.e. people are supposed to study harder too in the beginning of their careers so later on they get better paying jobs. If doctor/lawyer or similar jobs would carry only a privilege to make a lot of money for working less than e.g. janitors then all janitors would change jobs to become doctors overnight.
>>Could you revisit my question now, in regard to the rule I mentioned?
>
>I still don't have a real good guage to compare cumulative work over a period of time. Suppose I started my prep in order to become a software developer in 1970, and the coal miner began working in the mines in 1970. By the year 2008, who has worked harder cumulatively? It's not really possible to compare, but if I were nailed to the wall over it, I'd have to pick the coal miner.

What about using common sense instead of looking for gauges? It says, imho, that if you'd have to pick the coal miner then you would become one. By the way, Canadian coal miners make very good money. I would venture to say that average coal miner makes better than average programmer.
Try to look at this in abstract way. We have labor market where people come to sell themselves for paychecks. Supply/demand (we are talking about free market model here) would manage this environment in the way that gives higher paycheck for higher effort. What is so wrong in this concept that you stubbornly refuse to accept it? Does it look too good? Keep in mind that this concept is general and you can always find exceptions to console yourself that world is still imperfect.