Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Basically, you're given a choice:

1) Work in a job you hate that eats up ALL your time and make a TON of money. This job also requires you to keep working until your retirement age or you end up losing everything you've worked for. Once you retire (late 60s to early 70s), you get to enjoy the fruits of you labor: A Mansion, a yacht, several luxury cars and a big fat bank account.

2) Work in a job you love. Make just enough to get by (w/c includes decent education for your kids as well as all the relevant insurances/benefits at an average level). You control your time and you're allowed to split your time between yourself, your work, your loved ones and your activities/hobbies outside of your work. You retire with an average pension.

Given a choice between the two. Which path would you take?

Option 2.

Option 1 would be nice, but 2 would make me happier in the long run.

Option 2 is pretty incredible, I'm making no sacrifices in order to do something that I love.

ya, I fail to see the downside of an upper middle class lifestyle that gives me absolute freedom....

Same

first world dilemmas

What everyone else is saying. I'd also add that hypothetical scenarios that don't conform to reality are only occasionally useful. Artificial restrictions like being forced to work until retirement add false constraints that don't exist in the modern world, and thus are only useful as talking points if they give us some sort of insight into our inner being. In this case, I think the revelatory value is limited, at best.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
1) Work in a job you hate that eats up ALL your time and make a TON of money. This job also requires you to keep working until your retirement age or you end up losing everything you've worked for. Once you retire (late 60s to early 70s), you get to enjoy the fruits of you labor: A Mansion, a yacht, several luxury cars and a big fat bank account.

2) Work in a job you love. Make just enough to get by (w/c includes decent education for your kids as well as all the relevant insurances/benefits at an average level). You control your time and you're allowed to split your time between yourself, your work, your loved ones and your activities/hobbies outside of your work. You retire with an average pension. Option 2...not far off from where I am, anyway.

I've known quite a few people over the years who were going for something like Option 1. Generally, an insecure, pompous, and relatively shallow lot whose identites are wrapped up in materialism. Generally.

Follow up question: What's the threshold for when Option 1 becomes tolerable instead of Option 2? Basically, to make things more interesting, let's add a few "uncertainties" to Option 2:

1) Your income in Option 2 is at the level where you can only save as much so that your kids might need to go to public school and a community college. Or/and;
2) Medical insurances in Option 2 might be insufficient to cover the difference between your income and the best care you can possibly get if you get seriously sick. Or/and;
3) Your income requires that your spouse also continue with her job. It's a moderately physically demanding job (let's say a Physical Therapist). The risk is that if she worries about getting too old to continue working as a physical therapist as her income is needed to make ends meet.
4) Job security becomes uncertain in Option 2. It's not completely uncertain, let's just say you're working in a risky industry.

Will any single or group of uncertainties make option 1 a more tolerable choice?

A teacher asks his students, "What do you want to be when you're older?"
One child replies, "Happy."
The teacher says to the pupil, "I don't think you understand the question."
The pupil says, "I don't think you understand life."

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Follow up question: What's the threshold for when Option 1 becomes tolerable instead of Option 2? Basically, to make things more interesting, let's add a few "uncertainties" to Option 2:

1) Your income in Option 2 is at the level where you can only save as much so that your kids might need to go to public school and a community college. Or/and;
2) Medical insurances in Option 2 might be insufficient to cover the difference between your income and the best care you can possibly get if you get seriously sick. Or/and;
3) Your income requires that your spouse also continue with her job. It's a moderately physically demanding job (let's say a Physical Therapist). The risk is that if she worries about getting too old to continue working as a physical therapist as her income is needed to make ends meet.
4) Job security becomes uncertain in Option 2. It's not completely uncertain, let's just say you're working in a risky industry.

Will any single or group of uncertainties make option 1 a more tolerable choice?

Option 2: make enough money to educate your kids with post-secondary degrees, medical coverage for general health issues, you love your work, full freedom over hours with the drawback of minimal job insecurity and, though I think you underestimate how much PTs get paid, your spouse has to work also...

You realize this is still an option superior to what 99% of people have? Like, if you really want to do a "would you rather..." your comparisons need to have a clear drawback. Your option 2, to almost everyone on the planet, sounds like "do you want to earn an above average wage to do what you love and have freedom over when you work?" re: do you want an unrealistically fulfilling life? or do you want a life that, by the description in the OP, is only enjoyable in its later years?

I agree with Digi, the question is silly in the first place, but at least make option 2 have some negative that people might take pause at. Make it like, you never earn more than the individual poverty limit, or no medical coverage. Even the "starving artist" scenario.

It also screams volumes that you think having your wife work is a "sacrifice". I don't know if it is more offensive to women themselves, to my own feelings about individual worth, or an informative look at what type of background you must come from, but man... The soft bigotry of low expectations...

I don't think I could live happily being just "normal". The thought of just being "content" with your life, having no aspirations or desires to become better, frightens me.

neither option is really "normal" though...

I cant possibly hate a job if Im making a ton of money, How can you possible hate a job paying you $50/h regardless of how much an ******* your boss is.

Compared to working a job you LOVE making $20/h.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Basically, you're given a choice:

1) Work in a job you hate that eats up ALL your time and make a TON of money. This job also requires you to keep working until your retirement age or you end up losing everything you've worked for. Once you retire (late 60s to early 70s), you get to enjoy the fruits of you labor: A Mansion, a yacht, several luxury cars and a big fat bank account.

2) Work in a job you love. Make just enough to get by (w/c includes decent education for your kids as well as all the relevant insurances/benefits at an average level). You control your time and you're allowed to split your time between yourself, your work, your loved ones and your activities/hobbies outside of your work. You retire with an average pension.

Given a choice between the two. Which path would you take?

Option 2. Not really a contest.

Doing something I love with that much job security and freedom as well as very reasonable pay? Why would anyone in their right mind turn that down?

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
I cant possibly hate a job if Im making a ton of money, How can you possible hate a job paying you $50/h regardless of how much an ******* your boss is.

The listed problem is "eats up all of your time". High powered lawyers, as an example, can end up with basically no life outside of work. Money isn't fun, getting to do stuff with money is fun.

Originally posted by Astner
I don't think I could live happily being just "normal". The thought of just being "content" with your life, having no aspirations or desires to become better, frightens me.

You're not being "normal" though, you're just being average in terms of income (actually above average with the listed benefits).

Originally posted by Jedi Sheriff
A teacher asks his students, "What do you want to be when you're older?"
One child replies, "Happy."
The teacher says to the pupil, "I don't think you understand the question."
The pupil says, "I don't think you understand life."

This is precisely why we need corporal punishment in schools.

Why not point this dilemma out to enough of your coworkers to form a union so you can have both?

Originally posted by Digi
What everyone else is saying. I'd also add that hypothetical scenarios that don't conform to reality are only occasionally useful. Artificial restrictions like being forced to work until retirement add false constraints that don't exist in the modern world, and thus are only useful as talking points if they give us some sort of insight into our inner being. In this case, I think the revelatory value is limited, at best.

I'm gonna be honest. This isn't a purely hypothetical scenario.

A friend of mine was given this choice just recently. He chose option B, of course. The choice seemed very simple at first until we got down to the nitty gritty details of it.

His choice was: Run his family's business (w/c would literally be a 15 hour a day work schedule) until he's old enough to pass it onto his kids the same way his dad passed it onto him. Or leave to pursue the career he's always wanted (as the opportunity has just recently presented itself to him). His choice of career would mean that he had to leave the country where the family business was in, w/c would mean that the responsibility of the business gets passed on to a different sibling. If he accepts, he won't be able to leave it at any time because the business itself is heavily centralized and highly leveraged and just up and leaving it whenever he feels like it would risk the business falling apart. It's not exactly as airtight or as definite as "can never leave it", but let's just say he sees it in this light due to the factors involved.

Me, my friend and some of our closest friends sat down to discuss his options as he was seeking our advice in the matter. Overall, it was a rather interesting discussion and I wanted to throw it in here as I felt like more minds contributing ideas would help illuminate the choices further (asked his permission, he didn't seem to mind me asking in a public forum as long as I keep his name anonymous).

I normally have Oliver over here on ignore, but I checked on what he said anyway as he contributed to the discussion. But as an answer to his comment about "soft bigotry of low expectations": the concern about his spouse working didn't come from him. It came from his spouse voicing her concerns about the uncertainty of their future as a good chunk of their income would be coming from her if he decides to walk away from the family business. Her work is very physical and there are limits to how long she can keep doing it (not necessarily PT, just threw it in as an example). There is no sexism here (I seriously don't see how you managed to jump to that conclusion w/o first asking for context in the first place), just genuine concerns voiced by the people affected by it.

Anyway, back to what I was saying... The thing is, we tend to initially see things in an idealistic light. One option being the obvious decision to take due to (what seems at the time) how we initially perceive it as the choice presents itself. Then as we delve deeper into the details of such a decision, we start addressing the details and realities of it. I wanted to discuss it in the same way as how our conversation progressed. That is why I started with a no-brainer choice and slowly revealed smaller realities that such a choice would entail.

The possibility of freedom in a happy life (even with uncertainties involved) is, indeed, the right choice (the way I see it anyway), but it's hard to walk away from the type of future that he was offered this is a LOT of money and people have done far worse than work hard and give up their time and their dreams to be super wealthy, to be honest.

Like I said, I introduced some follow up scenarios, would these possibilities make you consider option 1 even in the slightest or is it still a no brainer?

you dont see how saying: "your spouse has to work" is a negative thing could be taken as sexist?

you know, without the paragraphs of context you just gave?

This is what I wrote:

Originally posted by Nibedicus
3) Your income requires that your spouse also continue with her job. It's a moderately physically demanding job (let's say a Physical Therapist). The risk is that if she worries about getting too old to continue working as a physical therapist as her income is needed to make ends meet.


I felt like I was pretty clear that the concern was from the spouse when I wrote it. /shrug

If not, then I guess I'm clarifying it now.

Originally posted by Oliver North


It also screams volumes that you think having your wife work is a "sacrifice". I don't know if it is more offensive to women themselves, to my own feelings about individual worth, or an informative look at what type of background you must come from, but man... The soft bigotry of low expectations...

Man, you are so hot....

A bitchy attitude isn't a genetic trait, and you don't want to want your children to inherit ugly people's genes.

Originally posted by Astner
A bitchy attitude isn't a genetic trait, and you don't want to want your children to inherit ugly people's genes.

Wrong thread man!

Whoops.

Originally posted by Astner
Whoops.

That's what you get for trying to work a triple integral derivative while also posting on KMC, Astner.

Option 2.

Soooo...

Just so we can get things straight/sure:

You'd all turn down a job (that you KNOW you'd hate) that would offer (let's say) 100k USD a month (where, in the economy you're in, would be woth 5x as much) for a job you love that offers somewhere between 35-40k USD annually (in an economy where it would be worth just that)?

You've added some specific figures now, and those aren't all the stipulations you had in the OP. In the OP, option 1 is an auto-lose almost solely because you can't actually spend your money.

Well, not until you're 3 years from death.

Originally posted by StyleTime
You've added some specific figures now, and those aren't all the stipulations you had in the OP. In the OP, option 1 is an auto-lose almost solely because you can't actually do anything with your money.

Well, not until you're 3 years from death.

Didn't say you CAN'T spend the money. Just that you won't have that much time to do so (like I said, it literally eats up all your time). You'll NEED to keep working to sustain it, tho as you're in a company that's heavily leveraged that you will be personally liable for (as it is, functionally, a single proprietorship). So, you can't do the whole "Work for 5 years, save all my money then quit" route.

I added the figures just to make the choice a bit more realistic.

So then there's no point to having the money. If your goal is personal gain, then you're gaining, essentially, nothing. The only way that option would be attractive is if you're a very altruistic person and that money you're earning is a remittance for your family or something. The psychological/physiological stress of consuming your entire life with wretched tasks is not worth the bloated bank account. Most people don't work because they like having a lot of money--they work because they enjoy spending that money, and having the time and freedom to relish in it.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Didn't say you CAN'T spend the money. Just that you won't have that much time to do so (like I said, it literally eats up all your time). You'll NEED to keep working to sustain it, tho as you're in a company that's heavily leveraged that you will be personally liable for (as it is, functionally, a single proprietorship). So, you can't do the whole "Work for 5 years, save all my money then quit" route.

I added the figures just to make the choice a bit more realistic.
Maybe I should re-phrase. Yes, you could spend the money; however, you can't actually enjoy(selfishly) much of what you buy. The job eats all of your time.

Cool. You'd still need to really nerf Option 2 or buff Option 1 for this to be even.

Symmetric Chaos summed it up nicely.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Money isn't fun, getting to do stuff with money is fun.

Originally posted by StyleTime
Maybe I should re-phrase. Yes, you could spend the money; however, you can't actually enjoy(selfishly) much of what you buy. The job eats all of your time.

Cool. You'd still need to really nerf Option 2 or buff Option 1 for this to be even.

Symmetric Chaos summed it up nicely.

Not trying to make it even, tho. I'll be honest, I felt bad suggesting option 2 to my friend due to the sheer magnitude of exactly what he's giving up when the numbers are tallied.

Went online (not the best way to do it, I know) just to validate that I gave the right advice, I guess.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Not trying to make it even, tho. I'll be honest, I felt bad suggesting option 2 to my friend due to the sheer magnitude of exactly what he's giving up when the numbers are tallied.

Went online (not the best way to do it, I know) just to validate that I gave the right advice, I guess.
Oh, I misunderstood the thread then.

Originally posted by StyleTime
Oh, I misunderstood the thread then.

Nah, u didn't misunderstand, I was actually presenting the thread that way at the start just to keep out "personal" references in it at the start. I realized after that it makes more sense to keep this out of the "hypothetical" scenario as the choices themselves seem a little unbalanced/impractical/unrelatable at first.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
This is precisely why we need corporal punishment in schools.


It was John Lennon I was talking about, but no, you go ahead and flog him!

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Not trying to make it even, tho. I'll be honest, I felt bad suggesting option 2 to my friend due to the sheer magnitude of exactly what he's giving up when the numbers are tallied.

Went online (not the best way to do it, I know) just to validate that I gave the right advice, I guess.

In reality, though, there would generally be a third option

For myself, or anyone with a post-secondary degree (I know this does limit a lot of people, but bare with me), there is almost certainly a position out there where you could be making more money (for myself, I could, today get employment in industry instead of academia and make considerably more money), or where they could have far more personal freedom (any minimum wage job would be less demanding than what I have now, and I'm sure I could find one that was enjoyable).

The goal shouldn't be to choose between these two options, but to find something that is both financially worthwhile and enjoyable, and frankly, these positions do exist if your friend is willing to put in the leg work.

Well, of course there will eventually be a third, fourth, fifth, etc. option. But the choice (as it happened) really only provided him with two definite and existent options.

He may also approach his current position in the company and work on reducing the debt to asset ratio of the company given sufficient time simply by slowing down its expansion and focus on converting profits to debt servicing rather than fueling growth (something that he'll have the opportunity to do once he's taken the job). But as like I said, we're not talking about possible opportunities that exist long enough to give us sufficient time to look for better ones or give us sufficient time to make new opportunities ourselves. Many doors tend to only stay open for a very short time.

I will choose option number 2. That's the true meaning of life. We should live it well and enjoy it.