> the only thing they have is two unhappy clients
It depends.
When it comes to clients (in a freelancer context) there's usually a well-defined scope of work and deliverable. As long as that work & deliverable is delivered satisfactorily there shouldn't be a problem. Going above & beyond that for long periods of time is usually a waste of time if it isn't reciprocated in the form of better compensation for the next deal, and since the primary (only?) reason to take 2 jobs is money I'm assuming this clearly isn't happening here.
When it comes to employers, the scope of work/deliverable is less defined, but assuming he's meeting his employers' expectations and performance reviews, the same would apply - going above & beyond as an individual contributor is rarely monetarily rewarded from my experience, similar to how you need to switch jobs every few years to maximize your comp because companies don't adequately reward their existing employees.
> you are just scamming the people paying you in my opinion
I disagree.
The "scam" is that employers have a set of expectations (that they enforce via the job description/responsibilities and performance reviews) but want to extract more value beyond that without adequate compensation (otherwise the job responsibilities would include those duties to begin with, and prospective employees can judge whether the offered compensation is adequate) out of employees who might not be aware of their true market value. Employers are essentially gambling with undefined odds; I don't see anything wrong with skewing those odds in your favour.
If this guy can truly do their day's duties in 2 hours, their employer should either redraft their contract to expect 2 hours for the same pay or offer them 80% more pay to work the entire day. If the employer is not willing to do that I'd argue they are the ones scamming people.
Also, let's ignore the concept of multiple jobs and say he's working 2 hours and spending the rest of his time making art or some other non-lucrative activity. To the employer there should be no difference in either case.
> Also, it's a small world out there, tarnished reputations have a hard time finding good work.
1) He replied above with a breakdown of the comp - he's making ~900k total. If he can keep up the charade for a few years and save enough money to retire early, why does it matter? Industry people can be badmouthing him all they want, but he's got a nice house, maybe a family and a non-tech job just to occupy time.
As I grow older (in tech career terms) I realize more and more that the ideal of a "successful tech startup founder" staying in the industry forever is an unlikely dream and focusing on yourself is a better strategy for most people.
2) I have a hard time believing every shitty startup out there has some kind of direct line to a "registry of bad employees"; please correct me if I'm wrong but it seems like in the current market, short of a criminal record anyone can get a job provided they can put up with bullshit hiring processes & tech tests and have some experience.