Very true. Value for value.

I have debated this issue extensively. This is particularly true of women, in my experience. Often, their skills are above the position they seek. I usually attribute it flexibility and less responsibility-especially when there are little ones-but not always. I've talked about this with Euda before-women tend to look at different factors in a position besides salary. I don't want to just separate out women (too much of that going on in here recently, in my opinion) but take the group of entrepreneurs. Often, when someone is thinking about starting their own business, they are looking to cross-train. The company's view is always-they won't be here long, but I've often found, in their short tenure they've gone above and beyond their actual "duties" and leave valuable systems and ideas behind for their replacement and the company as a whole.

That is a very good question kh. I have applied for several jobs that require basic computer & phone skills. I don't even get an interview because I'm 'over qualified'. That may be, but I also show up to work on time, do the job and don't do drama. Perhaps they think I'll move on to something else, but how about an interview to ask the question? I can't imagine I'm the only one in this position either. I've shrugged and don't really need the job but I want to be even more productive than I am.

I have seen those "afraid" to hire people with the best skills due to fear they'll leave quickly.
they'll quote all sorts of statistics to show support for this theory. Do our modern management systems arbitrarily limit the value this worker, who admittedly may stay a shorter time, can provide to the organization?

It's getting hard to find the 'men of ability' these days. I keep looking but I haven't found them.