That isn't how salaries work though. For most jobs, someone who works 25% longer is more than 25% better. Someone who works 80 hours is generally better than 2 people who work 40 hours because that one guy has all the aggregated contacts and operational knowledge that would otherwise be divided across two people which would come with the overhead of those two people syncing up and communicating with each other. If this wasn't true, then every company would hire 2 people to work normal hours rather than one person who works twice as much (doctors, HFT, whatever).
I actually think that a good model for the way salaries work is with regards $/hours^2. So $500k for 100hr, that means its $50 / hr^2, then 50 hour weeks would get paid $125k, and 25hr weeks would get you $32k. (I actually think that is breaking down once you get down to 25hr though) If you are able to pull $100k working 25 hrs / week then you could be making a lot more than double if you worked 50 hours per week.
(I'm assuming you are a software developer or related job. I actually think this is job dependent; eg CEOs and janitors probably don't follow that trend).
I actually think that a good model for the way salaries work is with regards $/hours^2. So $500k for 100hr, that means its $50 / hr^2, then 50 hour weeks would get paid $125k, and 25hr weeks would get you $32k. (I actually think that is breaking down once you get down to 25hr though) If you are able to pull $100k working 25 hrs / week then you could be making a lot more than double if you worked 50 hours per week.
(I'm assuming you are a software developer or related job. I actually think this is job dependent; eg CEOs and janitors probably don't follow that trend).