I personally think this is an uncharitable reading, you can have a different internal benchmark or standard you want for yourself vs others

From a purely consistency perspective I don't think you're incorrect, but humans aren't purely consistent

We are able to accept that our personal preferences aren't the same as others and still like, respect or love them anyway

I read the GP as stating:

- he wanted to work for a place that made him happy

- he voiced that pleasure to others, "I'm glad I work at a place I find inspiring"

- they took that as an implicit attack on them

There are at least two parties to a conversation, each of them gets their own opportunity to interpret what occurs

It sounds like in this instance they interpreted his position much more negatively than he intended

Now to answer why is in my opinion is much more complicated and I honestly wouldn't hazard a guess without either being there or knowing both parties very well

> - he voiced that pleasure to others, "I'm glad I work at a place I find inspiring"

That's not what he said though. His version included a comparison to others:

> I made probably half what I could have made at places that were more dodgy.

That's where the offense comes from.