It was an ordinary evening until my phone rang.
One sentence erased nearly two decades.
“Ma’am, you were right.”
There was no excitement in his voice. No relief either. Just steadiness.
The kind that comes when a career stops demanding justification.
It was Anku.
Back in 2006, Anku was already earning well. Fresh out of college, he was tutoring online at ₹250 an hour and bringing home close to ₹45,000 a month. If he pushed harder, the number could easily double. For a young graduate, this felt like proof that life was already working.
Then came another option.
Through his father, Anku was offered a contractual role in a state-owned enterprise. The pay was ₹8,000 per month. No perks. No guarantees. Just an institutional role with the possibility of permanency.
He was conflicted. Not because the choice was unclear, but because the numbers were brutal.
On one side was fast money, independence, and immediate validation.
On the other was structure, learning, and a future that looked slow and uncertain.
When he came to me, he wasn’t asking which job was better.
He was asking whether choosing less would be foolish.
Instead of answering, I asked him something uncomfortable.
“Will staying where you are increase your bargaining power in five years?”
That question changed the conversation.
I told him, “A career isn’t defined by what you earn today. It’s defined by how much power you have to negotiate tomorrow.”
And then I added the part that mattered most:
“Low pay is never justified on its own. It only makes sense if it buys you leverage.”
In Anku’s case, the state role did three things his tutoring income never could:
It increased his institutional credibility.
It opened a clear path to permanency.
It expanded his future income range instead of capping it.
That ₹80,000 potential was real money, but it had no resale value.
The ₹8,000 role, while painfully small, was building compounding power.
This is why his decision worked.
Not because he was patient.
Because the role expanded his options.
Years passed. The contract became permanent. Responsibility grew. So did authority, income, and calm. Today, Anku holds a senior position and lives without the constant anxiety of proving his worth every month.
When he called, what stood out wasn’t gratitude.
It was certainty.
That call stayed with me, especially because just days earlier, I had been sitting in a B.Ed classroom where a student asked a question that cut even deeper:
“Why are teachers told to adjust now and grow later, when the growth never seems to come?”
That question exposes the danger of oversimplifying stories like Anku’s.
Because here is the truth we must say clearly:
His choice worked because the system offered leverage.
Most teaching roles today do not.
In teaching, low pay is often paired with:
-
Capped growth
-
Policy-locked salaries
-
Non-transferable skills
-
Little negotiating power, even after years of experience
In such systems, patience does not compound.
It traps.
So when institutions tell teachers to “gain experience first,” without showing how that experience converts into power, they are not guiding careers. They are postponing accountability.
This is where the narrative must change.
A career should never be framed as:
“Accept less because the work is meaningful.”
It must be framed as:
“Here is what you earn now.
Here is how your value grows.
Here is when your power increases.
And here is the risk if it doesn’t.”
Impact without agency is exploitation.
Clarity without upside is limitation.
Anku was not asked to sacrifice blindly.
He was shown a ladder.
Most teachers are asked to climb without seeing one.
That distinction matters.
So when someone today asks, “Should I take a lower-paying role?” the real question is not about salary.
It is this:
Does this role increase my future bargaining power?
Does it expand my options or reduce them?
Can I exit without starting over?
Is growth driven by performance or frozen by policy?
If the answers are clear, informed patience can be powerful.
If they are not, asking someone to “adjust” is not mentorship.
It is abdication.
That phone call reminded me of something essential:
The real career decision is never about choosing a smaller cheque.
It is about choosing whether a role gives you power tomorrow.
And that is the clarity every student, every teacher, and every institution owes the next generation.