So in your opinion, the idea of working is sort of like Pascal's Wager where you should only work hard, and build the best relationships you can just in case you get top dollar, and even then you didn't really deserve it-it was arbitarily given to you.
Otherwise, just be mediocre and be happy to be getting what you're getting?
It's a common argument - either you work for money or you work because you love the work itself. Besides what should be common sense, there have been plenty of studies denoting that working simply for money does not bring happiness (assuming you are above the poverty line and even then in many cases), especially long term.
That's not what I said at all. (and I don't see how you interpreted it that way)
To put it simply, though it is understood that one needs to make money and that it's natural to want to be paid as much as possible for whatever your work is, to a certain extent I value the work itself a bit above the pay. Meaning that I won't just do what I like if it doesn't pay anything, but above a certain level of pay, I'd rather maximize the fulfillment from the job itself.
In that specific conversation I (and I believe swombat as well) got interested in what being a recruiter means and how it could be a fulfilling job in a different way than programming can be. The same way one could look at public speaking as interesting because it's very different from programming. Thus the point of view of someone who was a developer turned recruiter interested me. (with the idea that a developer being usually paid well over decent living conditions, recruiting must be interesting in and of itself* )
However, the answer lost my interest for being primarily monetary, rather than the money being the icing on the cake.
But again, to each his own.
* I'm sure it is. It's just a reflection over that particular conversation.
Otherwise, just be mediocre and be happy to be getting what you're getting?
That makes absolutely zero sense.