Why Some Work Pays 10× More

By Pritesh Yadav 10 min read

Two people can work equally hard, be equally smart, and put in the same hours — and one earns ₹8 lakh a year while the other earns ₹8 crore. This is not luck, and it is usually not unfairness either. It is structure. Pay is not a reward for effort. Pay is a reward for value that the market can attribute to you and can't easily get elsewhere. Once you see the structure clearly, you stop asking "how do I work harder?" and start asking the better question: "how do I make the same work pay more?"

This chapter gives you the single mental model that explains almost every income gap you'll ever see, and shows you how to climb it — honestly, over years, with no get-rich-quick hype.

The master equation: rarity × demand × scalability

Investor and founder Naval Ravikant compressed the whole game into one line: "Get paid for your judgment, applied to a permissionless leverage, at scale." Underneath that sit three multipliers. Your income is roughly their product:

  PAY  ≈   RARITY        ×   DEMAND        ×   SCALABILITY
         (hard to        (many people       (how many you
          replace you)    want it)           can serve at once)

  Miss any one → it collapses toward zero.
  Stack all three → 10×, 100×, 1000×.

Because they multiply, being amazing on one axis and zero on another gets you nothing. The world's best player of a dead board game (rare, but no demand) earns little. A brilliant skill you can only sell one hour at a time (rare + in demand, but not scalable) caps out fast. The 10× outcomes come from people who are strong on all three at once. Let's take them one at a time.

Analogy: Think of a stage. Rarity is how few people can do your act. Demand is how many people bought tickets. Scalability is how big the venue is. A genius act in an empty 10-seat room earns nothing. The same act, streamed to a million paying viewers, is a fortune. Same performer — different structure.

Multiplier 1 — Rarity: be hard to replace

Wages obey supply and demand like everything else. Supply here means "how many people can do this." When supply is abundant — anyone can be trained for the task in a few weeks — the price gets crushed, even if demand is high. That's why generic data-entry or basic admin work pays poorly: not because it's easy, but because it's common.

Naval's blunt test: "If society can train you, it can train someone else — and replace you." Rarity is the scarce side of the curve. Cal Newport, in So Good They Can't Ignore You, calls the stockpile of rare, valuable skills your career capital — the currency you trade for high pay, autonomy, and interesting work. His advice is to adopt a craftsman mindset (relentlessly get better at hard things) rather than the passion hypothesis ("just follow your passion" — which, he argues, is weak advice because passion follows mastery, not the other way around).

Best practice: You don't need to be the world's #1 at anything. Stack skills instead. Being in the top 25% at two or three complementary skills — say, decent backend coding + decent copywriting + decent print-industry knowledge — makes you a "category of one." The intersection is rare even when each ingredient isn't. For a SaaS founder, "engineer who deeply understands a boring niche" is a far rarer (and richer) profile than "great engineer."

Common mistake: Chasing rarity for its own sake. Becoming the world's expert in something almost nobody pays for is a trap. Rarity must point at demand.

Multiplier 2 — Demand: aim at a market that already pays

Rarity without demand is a hobby. The honest way to measure demand is not what people say ("oh, I'd love that") — it's what they already pay for, and how painfully they solve the problem today. (This is the logic of Rob Fitzpatrick's The Mom Test: revealed behaviour beats stated intent.)

Example: A poet with a genuinely rare voice and a freelancer skilled in ad-conversion copywriting may have similar rarity. But businesses pay ₹50,000+ a month for copy that measurably lifts sales, and almost nothing for poetry. Point the same level of craft at deep paying demand and the income can differ 20×. Choose your battlefield deliberately.

Multiplier 3 — Scalability: break the time ceiling

Here is the lever most people never pull, and it's the biggest one. If you sell your time, your income is hours × rate, and both are capped. You have at most ~10 productive hours a day, and your rate is limited to what one buyer will pay one person.

Example — the income ceiling, worked out: A top consultant bills ₹5,000/hour. Fully booked at, say, 2,000 billable hours a year, that's about ₹1 crore — and it stops the instant they stop working. There's no version of this that reaches ₹100 crore, because there are no more hours to sell. The ceiling is mathematical, not motivational.

The escape is zero marginal cost. Marginal cost means "what it costs to serve one more customer." For a service, that cost is another hour of your life. For software and media, it's nearly ₹0 — you write the code or record the content once, and it can be copied and delivered to one more person, or a million more, at essentially no extra cost and no extra labour. Your output decouples from your hours.

 SERVICE (time-for-money)        PRODUCT (zero marginal cost)
 ───────────────────────        ────────────────────────────
 1 you  ──serves──> 1 client    1 you ──serves──> 1, then 1,000,
 next client = +1 hour          then 1,000,000 ...  cost ≈ ₹0 each
 income = hours × rate (capped)  income decouples from hours
 earns ₹0 when you sleep         earns while you sleep

Naval's prescription is to "productize yourself": take your specific knowledge and wrap it in something that scales — software, a course, a digital product, an audience. The same expertise that capped a consultant at ₹1 crore can, as a SaaS product, serve every new customer at near-zero cost. That single shift — consultant → product — is the spine of this whole chapter.

Leverage: the exponent on your judgment

Leverage is a multiplier on each unit of your judgment. Naval names four kinds, split by whether you need someone's permission to use them:

LeverageWhat it isPermissioned?
LabourPeople work for youYes — you must hire / be granted reports
CapitalMoney works for youYes — investors must grant it
CodeSoftware runs for youNo — build it yourself
MediaContent sells for youNo — publish it yourself

Code and media are the "permissionless" levers — "an army of robots and media that works while you sleep." You don't need anyone's blessing to write a program or publish a post, and both have zero marginal cost. This is why, as Naval puts it, "the newly rich" are built on code and media. For an Indian SaaS founder, this is your home turf: your product is code, and your content is media.

Common mistake: Treating leverage as magic. Leverage multiplies whatever judgment you feed it — including bad judgment. Code can scale a flawed product to a million unhappy users overnight. Judgment is the base; leverage is the exponent. A negative base, raised to a big power, just gets more negative. Earn the judgment first.

Why proximity to revenue and accountability pay more

Even inside salaried work, the same principle decides pay. Roles closer to revenue, shipping, or the actual decision earn more than equally hard support roles — because their value is directly attributable and they carry real risk. Accountability (Naval's word) means putting your name on the outcome and owning the downside. Society pays for that, because few people will take it.

Example — same difficulty, different pay: US sales engineers (technical experts who help close deals) earned a median of $121,520 in May 2024 (BLS), with tech-sector on-target earnings often ~$200k; software publishers pay roughly a $35k premium over manufacturing. Tellingly, reps with direct deal influence get a 70/30 base-to-variable split (more upside), while indirect support roles get 80/20. The closer your work sits to the revenue number, the more of your pay is upside — because your value is attributable.
Key takeaway: Pay tracks attributable value plus risk borne, not effort expended. Move toward work where your contribution to the result is visible and where you carry some of the downside.

India-specific: turning value into equity and scaling it cleanly

ESOPs — the upgrade from salary to ownership

ESOP = Employee Stock Ownership Plan: the right to buy company shares at a fixed "strike" price. It's how an employee captures equity (accountability + leverage) instead of pure time-for-money. In India (post Budget 2024) ESOPs are taxed at two stages: (1) a perquisite at exercise — (fair market value − strike price), taxed as salary at your slab; and (2) capital gains at sale. For listed shares: short-term gains 20%, long-term 12.5% (first ₹1.25 lakh/year exempt). For unlisted shares: short-term at slab if held ≤24 months, long-term 12.5% without indexation if held longer. Startup relief: employees of DPIIT-recognised, Section 80-IAC-eligible startups can defer the perquisite tax to the earliest of 48 months from the end of the relevant assessment year, sale of shares, or leaving the company.

GST thresholds — relevant the moment you scale

GST = Goods and Services Tax. As of 2025, registration is mandatory once aggregate turnover crosses ₹40 lakh for goods or ₹20 lakh for services in normal-category states (₹20 lakh / ₹10 lakh in special-category states). Freelancers and consultants are service providers, so the ₹20 lakh limit applies. Important caveat: registration is mandatory regardless of turnover for inter-state supply and to claim Input Tax Credit or export benefits — which is exactly what happens once you sell a scalable digital product across states or abroad. Plan for it before you cross the line, not after.

Best practice: Map your own path up the ladder: per-hour gigs (Upwork, Fiverr, Internshala) → fixed-price productized offers → a digital product or SaaS that earns at zero marginal cost. Each rung trades a little certainty for a lot of scalability.

The honest caveats

This is not get-rich-quick. Naval's own framing: "You can get rich in a long time, not overnight." Rare valuable skills take years of deliberate practice — there's no shortcut around the rarity multiplier. Scalable, equity-based income is also lumpy, delayed, and risky: most products and startups fail, and a stable salary that trades upside for certainty is a perfectly legitimate choice, not a failure. The point of this chapter isn't to shame the salary — it's to make sure that if you want the 10×, you understand the structure that produces it.

Key Takeaways

  • Pay ≈ rarity × demand × scalability. Because they multiply, a zero on any axis collapses the whole thing — strengthen all three together.
  • Rarity is the scarce side of supply. If society can train someone to replace you, your price gets crushed. Stack 2–3 skills to become a category of one.
  • Demand is revealed by what people already pay for — point your rare skill at a deep-pocketed market, not a beloved niche.
  • Time-for-money has a hard mathematical ceiling. Zero-marginal-cost code and media break it — "productize yourself" to earn while you sleep.
  • Leverage is the exponent on judgment; code and media are the permissionless kinds. Earn the judgment first — leverage multiplies mistakes too.
  • Pay tracks attributable value + risk, not effort. Move toward revenue, shipping, and ownership (e.g. ESOPs) to capture equity instead of just salary.
  • It's get-rich-slowly. Rare skills take years and scalable income is risky and lumpy — go in with eyes open.

Continue reading