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?