• Member Since 12th Aug, 2013
  • offline last seen 3 hours ago

Bad Dragon


I write so that one day I may finally stop writing and be free, but these damn new ideas keep finding ways into my brain. I need to write more to keep up with them.

More Blog Posts278

Aug
5th
2018

Money vs happiness · 12:01am Aug 5th, 2018

Here's a scenario for you:
Imagine having an ability to apply for a job you're way underprepared for (but others have great expectations of you). You'd need like 50 hours to do the job properly, but you're expected to do it in just 8 hours. Such would be every day of the weak. You can put extra time in it, of course, but the day only has 24 hours, so even if you invest all the time in it, you still wouldn't be good enough. Every day you'd have to wing it and you'd make countless big mistakes on the way.

Would you take that kind of a job if it paid well? Would you sacrifice all your hobbies and everything that defines your life for a stress filled life full of regrets and contempt from yourself and others because of your incompetence? The only plus side would be the 10x pay compared to your current job?

Report Bad Dragon · 290 views · #good life
Join our Patreon to remove these adverts!
Comments ( 30 )

I'd hire six people at my old rate of pay to work 8 hours a day each, and spend two hours myself putting it together and taking credit for it.

Then I'd take home 4x my old pay for two hours of work a day and yell at my subordinates about how lazy they are and how they should thank me for even letting them have an opportunity.

As I got raises and bonuses I'd keep them to myself while giving my interns impossible tasks and gradually downsizing the team so I take home more and more of what used to be their pay, until I move on to a new position where I am even less qualified.

"Nope!" Shadows of Deity said to himself in a jaunty manner, "My life is band, band, band, band, band, orchestra, band, band, band, band, composing music."

4914447 It's not about the amount of work. It's about gathering all the information in your head and making sense of it all. A team cannot do it. Only one person can make it. And you're under supervision, so you can't outsource anything. It would be nice if that was a possibility. I've heard of people outsourcing their work to China or India for cheap $. Some were found out and fired, though.

4914498 So you're saying money doesn't matter? One should only commit to jobs one enjoys?

Huk
Huk #4 · Aug 5th, 2018 · · ·

You basically described how the job of an average software developer looks like :pinkiecrazy:

In a perfect world, I wouldn’t, but… we are not living in a perfect world do we? So in a real world? Yes, I would take it, and I would cut corners to get the job done, sacrificing quality and functionality - the same way I do right now :duck:

Unless, of course, there would be a viable alternative that would pay less but enough to meet my demands.

4914548
Pretty much.... I don't care for the American dream. I want to live a good life, Not a rich life.

If you don't need the extra money to live comfortably, why would you put yourself through the trouble? Doubly so if you're going to be left chronically and woefully unfulfilled at the end of the day? C'mon.

In all honesty, I'd rather do a job that brings me joy and barely scrape by on the pay. I'd like not to transform into stress related mental breakdowns and depression. I kinda like happiness more than I like $ signs.

4915249 You do not yet have enough to sustain yourself for the rest of your life.

4915262 Yet, are you not but a slave your whole life if you cannot even secure financial freedom for yourself? Have you ever tried to go out to secure yourself nourishment without taking a wallet with you? Why would you want your whole life to be like that? Not knowing if you'll be able to sustain yourself in the future. Perhaps the way to freedom is worth the price?

4915304
Any decent salaried or hourly job -- 40 hrs/week, with a reasonable workload and time management, at median starting income in your country or mine -- provides some kind of plan that offers future financial stability. Retirement, insurance, whatever it ends up being, there's more in your pocket than just what's in the bank. With careful planning and reasonable expectations, you can make just about anything work, short of being ganked by something you couldn't have prepared for anyway.

:derpytongue2:

4915307 If you were a slave and the master gave you two choices:
a) You can be free in a week
b) You can be free in a year
Which option would you choose?

4915314
That's a massive oversimplification and you know it. :derpytongue2: What's the allegory in play, debt? Possibly student?

The boundary conditions on the question overall are entirely too narrow to be realistic -- nothing in the job market or elsewhere is this incredibly binary. If one's current job isn't meeting one's fiscal needs, and the prospect of taking a better-paying job is making one literally physically ill, then the obvious solution is to take a third option. Look for a position that's closer to the best of both worlds; take a second job or find some further source of secondary income; find a housemate or partner with whom to split the cost of living. All of these are doable and massively reduce the potential impact something like that can have on a life.

4915321 But if financial freedom is your goal, should you not be willing to sacrifice some to achieve it? Sure, the shortcut has a cost (no personal life while you work) but if it gets you to your goal, it's all that matters.

If you have a flat tire, for whatever reason, you fix it. You don't adopt all the roads in the world to support your car with a flat tire. If you're producing issues, for whatever reason, you should fix yourself, also. If you're adjusting to it, it means you're not fixing it. It means you're letting it rule you.

4915304
Do you want to sacrifice having happiness to be a slave to corporate bodies and government zombies? Or would you rather have the liberty to be who you want and do the job you want? Do you want to live on a ball and chain, or in a cozy space with enough mobility that you can feasibly do better and preform greater because you are not chained? Because as we all know, money does not buy you happiness. Fulfillment of your personal dream does. If your dream is wealth, then yes, a career as you described would satisfy you dream. But my dream is not to be a slave to the multinational, high and mighty corporations. I dream to be myself and do the job I want to have. This is less an discussion of "Money or Happiness" and more a discussion of your personal goals and dreams.

4915472
I see you're no student of the 'journey mattering more than the destination' school. Or are just very aggressively married to the role of devil's advocate; I'm having a hard time telling which.

And, no, I find the flat-tyre argument to be fundamentally flawed. If the road you force yourself down on a daily basis contains enough pot-holes that you're consistently blowing tyres, then you should consider picking a different road, not screaming yourself hoarse at the tyre in the hopes that it'll perform better on the same shite road tomorrow.

As for not wanting to adapt to a changing situation? Uh, hate to break it to you here, chum, but people who adhere to that fantasy have this fascinating tendency to get steamrollered by life, usually by the exact kinds of situations you've postulated. Darwinian principles apply to our little primate pea-brains as well as anything else's, and the hubris required to believe that one is perfect (to draw things back around to the *other* conversation we're having) and in no need of adaptation is about as evolutionarily-unsound as it gets.

4915504

money does not buy you happiness.

Then why does everyone want to be rich?

The jobs you do will always only be an approximation of what you actually want to do. If you have financial freedom, you can actually do what you want to do. You don't have to have a job, you can have a hobby, instead.

And it really doesn't matter what the source of the financial freedom is. If corporations are willing to provide it, so be it.

4915722

I see you're no student of the 'journey mattering more than the destination' school.

Indeed, I am very goal orientated. Trying doesn't do the job. Actually doing the job does the job.

If there's something in you that prevents you from achieving the goal, then that something is the problem. Getting rid of that something in you would, therefore, be a solution.

4915904

Indeed, I am very goal orientated.

And yet, you seem markedly uninterested in actually arriving at answers to the questions you pose. You've done very little to convince anyone in the comments of the rightness of your perspective, and your rebuttals smack more of reflexive gainsaying than of trying to draw deeper truths from anything that's been said. If not to play advocate, why ask if you've already very clearly answered the question to your own satisfaction?

Trying doesn't do the job. Actually doing the job does the job.

Still an incredibly blinkered mindset. Is there room for error in that world of binaries? For honest exploration of unknowns? If failure is unacceptable -- even as a learning experience! -- and learning itself is a waste of time (per the point about excising the parts of yourself that are 'producing issues', rather than using a changing world as an opportunity to expand your perspective), then what are you left with but the rote repetition of the things you can already be sure you know how to do?

Again I bring this back around to the other conversation: if one is already convinced that they know everything there is to know worth knowing -- in that sense believing themselves 'perfect' -- then for all the 'flaws' they excise, they will never in any way grow enough as a person to ever truly find happiness or wealth. All they'll be left with is the perpetual insecurity that comes with seeing the self as only something to be 'fixed' or 'repaired' rather than a perpetual work in progress. They'll be stuck constantly trying to convince the world of the limitless greatness they purportedly possess, and the world will laugh in their face.

What a tragically static and arrogant way to live one's life.

4915904
How about, I DO WHAT I PLEASE? If you believe everyone has to slave away at jobs they hate to earn their freedom, you are a poor lost soul. And i am not continuing this needless debate as you so clearly wish to murder the dreams of everyone. OR you are just dead set on attacking positivity about oneself. I will not do the thing i love most as a hobby, but as a career. It's never up to someone else and their harsh, and impudent, attacks one one's desire to choose another's life. Do not reply to this, because you will not get another response.

4916034
In addendum, as I still have more to say, sorry that my previous comment was not enough to fully accumulate my thoughts. I take the idea of sacrificing what I love to be in a constant state of emotional pain VERY seriously. It's just the way I am. If I sacrificed my enjoyment of life for money, I'd probably end up a victim of suicide. So I'd like to carry my happiness as closely as I possibly can Sorry if that goes against your premise of 'money is more important'. I just want to avoid suffering. That's all.

4915926

And yet, you seem markedly uninterested in actually arriving at answers to the questions you pose. You've done very little to convince anyone in the comments of the rightness of your perspective, and your rebuttals smack more of reflexive gainsaying than of trying to draw deeper truths from anything that's been said.

My goal is not to convince others, but to seek out alternative perspectives. When those are presented, I check their validity by trying to find holes in them. It may seem as if I'm resisting them, but that's not the case. I merely want to make sure that what was presented to me is the actual truth. Truth does not have any holes. If the holes I point at can be closed and I run out of counterarguments, I'm left with the only option to accept the new view as the truth. However, I can't just skip to the last step without doing the process I described..

If not to play advocate, why ask if you've already very clearly answered the question to your own satisfaction?

I am not advocating anything. I only present a view in order to receive counterviews. And I have not answered the question to my satisfaction, hence this blog.

Is there room for error in that world of binaries?

Zero errors is best. 1 error is bad, but it's still better than 2 errors. Establishing a system that produces as few errors as possible should, therefore, be the goal.

For honest exploration of unknowns? If failure is unacceptable -- even as a learning experience! -- and learning itself is a waste of time (per the point about excising the parts of yourself that are 'producing issues', rather than using a changing world as an opportunity to expand your perspective), then what are you left with but the rote repetition of the things you can already be sure you know how to do?

One can spend one's full life studying the content of countless movies. It's exploration, it's learning; but it may not make the couch-potato achieve any notable goals.

On the other claw, if all Superman can do is save people, and he spends his time doing exactly that, then he's a superhero in my eyes, even if he doesn't know what The Big Bang Theory is.

Again I bring this back around to the other conversation: if one is already convinced that they know everything there is to know worth knowing -- in that sense believing themselves 'perfect' -- then for all the 'flaws' they excise, they will never in any way grow enough as a person to ever truly find happiness or wealth.

I'm not promoting complacency. The opposite is true. If you see a lack of perfection, you should take it as an evidence that you're not perfect enough and strive to fix it. It's not about believing you're perfect. It's about not tolerating being imperfect. And that involves seeking out imperfections, not believing that you have none as you presupposed.

All they'll be left with is the perpetual insecurity that comes with seeing the self as only something to be 'fixed' or 'repaired' rather than a perpetual work in progress.

If they keep fixing themselves, do they not grow and become better?

They'll be stuck constantly trying to convince the world of the limitless greatness they purportedly possess, and the world will laugh in their face.

I think you're wrong. People who seek mistakes in themselves are not people who present themselves as perfect. Those who tolerate mistakes in themselves are the ones who present themselves as perfect.

What a tragically static and arrogant way to live one's life.

I still believe that striving to get closer to perfection (the actual perfection, not just the perceived one) is a noble goal. In my eyes, those who are complacent to their own shortcomings are the arrogant ones.


4916034

How about, I DO WHAT I PLEASE?

If everyone acted like that, we'd live in a world of chaos. Others and the world should be taken into consideration before any action is taken.

If you believe everyone has to slave away at jobs they hate to earn their freedom, you are a poor lost soul.

Then I guess I am lost.

And i am not continuing this needless debate as you so clearly wish to murder the dreams of everyone.

The dreams don't matter if the reality kills you. Hope is often the prerequisite for disasters.

OR you are just dead set on attacking positivity about oneself.

The feels don't matter. Smokers feel good when they smoke, but that doesn't make smoking good.

I will not do the thing i love most as a hobby, but as a career. It's never up to someone else and their harsh, and impudent, attacks one one's desire to choose another's life.

I am not here to teach. I'm here to learn. I learn by provoking views that differ from the one I post. People may get offended if they so choose, but offending is not on my agenda.

Do not reply to this, because you will not get another response.

You don't need to reply. And I already have my reply written, and don't intend to throw it away. It contains aditional information to the subject at hoof.

I take the idea of sacrificing what I love to be in a constant state of emotional pain VERY seriously. It's just the way I am. If I sacrificed my enjoyment of life for money, I'd probably end up a victim of suicide.

You strike me as a person who makes decisions based on feels. But ask yourself, would you really commit suicide if you your feels didn't matter to you?
It's like going to a dentist. It may feel horrible, but that's not important. Fixing your teeth is important. You do it not because it feels good, but despite it feeling horrible.

So I'd like to carry my happiness as closely as I possibly can

I have a hard time imagining a happy starving person. People who are hungry, thirsty and wet are not in good condition. I believe they would be happier if they were secured and taken care of.

Personally, I don't have enough to sustain myself for a lifetime. Not securing food for tomorrow on the premise that I have enough food for today is foolish. The future will come, and we have to be prepared for it. It's better to go out into the rain to secure yourself food for tomorrow than complacently enjoy being fed today.

Sorry if that goes against your premise of 'money is more important'. I just want to avoid suffering. That's all.

All who run out of money suffer. You, also, will suffer if you run out of money in the future. When that time comes, you may look back wondering, why were you so complacent about your future.

Let's hope it will never come to that. However, having hope alone may not be enough to prevent the bad.

Huk

4916143

After reading your answers, I have a feeling that you believe (or want to believe) that there is one universal answer to the question you asked when in reality there isn’t. If you want different POV then you would have to define some boundary conditions first, like:

  1. Your current job earns you enough to sustain you on the level that you consider acceptable.
  2. Your current job earns you enough to sustain you but on the level you consider unacceptable.
  3. Your job doesn’t earn you enough to sustain yourself, and sooner or later you will starve.

This is an extreme oversimplification but, from my experience, I would say, that most people would tell you:

  1. No, I wouldn’t change the job, even if it meant significant raise, because I already make enough for my needs. (Keep in mind, each person have different needs, some ‘need’ a nice sports car, while others are happy with Dacia Sandero).
  2. I would probably take the now job IF there were no other alternatives nearby.
  3. No matter what people say here, I can assure you they would take the job, no matter how much they would hate it afterward.

But, I say it again that even the above examples are guilty of extreme oversimplification like:

  1. Assuming the job will suck for eternity, while in reality, as you get more and more training, you will have to scarify less, and less of your personal time to learn (been there, done that). After a few weeks/months, you may become good enough to get the job done during your standard 8 hours of work.
  2. Assuming you have no other choice than to adjust your job (or rather, your income) to your lifestyle, while in reality, it is usually the other way around (unless, you are an irresponsible moron, who can’t stop spending more than he earns – sadly it happens more and more these days).
  3. Assuming there are no other jobs in the vicinity.

That said, I don't believe there is a universal answer because people vary a lot. One head of the family may take on the job that earns a lot, because he/she wants to provide the highest standard of living to the children – while some other mother/father may take a job that won’t earn him/her that much, but will allow them to spend more time with their children. Assuming that the children are not starving in neither case - which approach is the right one? I don’t think there is a universal answer here.

4918871

After reading your answers, I have a feeling that you believe (or want to believe) that there is one universal answer to the question you asked when in reality there isn’t.

Every sensible question has a sensible answer. That's what I believe.

If you want different POV then you would have to define some boundary conditions first, like:

If you find a few apples on the tree in front of your home, you're set for a day. Then, the next day, you find a few more, and you're sustained that day, as well. But things aren't all right. What if the apple tree stops producing apples? What then? You need to think about these things even if you have enough apples for the day. You can stop thinking about stuff like this when you have enough canned food for life (or enough money to buy enough food for life). I do not have that. If I do nothing, I will starve to death sometime in the future, therefore I should do everything in my power to prevent such future from occurring.

My apple tree sustains me for now. But I'm not willing to bet my life on this being the case in the future, as well. I'd like to feel secured even if a lightning were to hit my apple tree.

But, I say it again that even the above examples are guilty of extreme oversimplification like:

Assuming the job will suck for eternity, while in reality, as you get more and more training, you will have to scarify less, and less of your personal time to learn (been there, done that). After a few weeks/months, you may become good enough to get the job done during your standard 8 hours of work.

This 'job' would actually require about 1000 hours of my time every day. Even if I got extremely good at it, it would still require at least 100 hours per day from me. The problem is, and will always be, that the day only has 24 hours.

Assuming you have no other choice than to adjust your job (or rather, your income) to your lifestyle, while in reality, it is usually the other way around (unless, you are an irresponsible moron, who can’t stop spending more than he earns – sadly it happens more and more these days).

I'm adopted well enough to my apple tree, but that doesn't give me security for the future.

I don't really feel I have an option here. Even if one apple tree is good enough for the time. The situation isn't okay. It's unstable and the future is not secured.

Huk

4918956

Every sensible question has a sensible answer. That's what I believe.

The question is, is there a single, universal and sensible answer, or many answers one can find sensible, depending on the situation? Looking at the complexity of the world, I think the latter is true.

My apple tree sustains me for now. But I'm not willing to bet my life on this being the case in the future, as well. I'd like to feel secured even if a lightning were to hit my apple tree.

How far are you willing to go before you feel secure (I said feel because, frankly, you can never be truly 100% secure no matter what you do)? If we get back to your job example, then is it worth to take the job that will provide you with the sense of security, but at the same time make you miserable, or to keep your current job, that may not provide you with the sense of security, but at least make you happy?

Personally, I think that if you are miserable, then no amount of money will be able to fix that. Unless of course your plan would be to work in that job for a few years, make a shitload of money and then retire early, enjoying the fruits of your labor. But then, we are back to the ‘feeling secured’ problem.

This 'job' would actually require about 1000 hours of my time every day. Even if I got extremely good at it, it would still require at least 100 hours per day from me. The problem is, and will always be, that the day only has 24 hours.

If we throw away the extremes for a moment, then, what you described is basically the death march project:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_march_(project_management)

A lot of people who work on those project, end up as burned-out human wrecks. So, even if they are paid well – is it worth it? Or let me ask this another way – if I were to offer you a fat salary to work in conditions that would cut your life expectancy by 10%, would you take it? What if it were 20%? Or 30%? Where would you draw the line?

I don't really feel I have an option here. Even if one apple tree is good enough for the time. The situation isn't okay. It's unstable and the future is not secured.

OK, but what do you propose then? Because the way I see it there is nothing you can do to secure your future at 100%.

The way I see it, and what I personally believe in is that all people should aim for balance in all things. As of yet, I haven’t found a single example in… well, anything really - where aiming at one of the extremes turned out good.

So, in the job example, I would try to find a job that would allow me to make enough money to fulfill my needs, and not land me in the loony bin. If I couldn’t find it, I would take the one from your example, but I would keep looking for a better one.

4918982

The question is, is there a single, universal and sensible answer, or many answers one can find sensible, depending on the situation? Looking at the complexity of the world, I think the latter is true.

Different scenarios have different answers. But in a given scenario, there is the answer that describes the optimal solution for everyone involved, and other possible solutions and aspects. The world is not chaotic. It just looks that way when you lack all the information and the processing power to digest it all.

How far are you willing to go before you feel secure

I know what my lifespan is. I know how much food I need in that time. I'm also going to have to change a few computers in that time.

If we get back to your job example, then is it worth to take the job that will provide you with the sense of security, but at the same time make you miserable, or to keep your current job, that may not provide you with the sense of security, but at least make you happy?

None of the jobs make me feel secure because they only feed me for now, not for all of my future life. But maybe through suffering and insecurity, a time will come in the future where I won't have to fear starvation ever again.

Personally, I think that if you are miserable, then no amount of money will be able to fix that.

Through misery, you gain money. Money provides security. Security alleviates misery.

Unless of course your plan would be to work in that job for a few years, make a shitload of money and then retire early, enjoying the fruits of your labor. But then, we are back to the ‘feeling secured’ problem.

That or take on a job that doesn't pay much, but is somewhat enjoyable. I wouldn't get my security from what it pays because I would already be secured.

As for not being able to achieve a certain level of security, I don't see it as a problem. If you're falling off a cliff, you don't feel secure, no matter how you slice it. But if you're standing on solid ground and only see a cliff in a distance, then you can feel quite secure in your situation.

This 'job' would actually require about 1000 hours of my time every day. Even if I got extremely good at it, it would still require at least 100 hours per day from me. The problem is, and will always be, that the day only has 24 hours.

If we throw away the extremes for a moment, then, what you described is basically the death march project:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_march_(project_management)

Yes, that's exactly what this 'job' is. It involves failure upon failure. The best I can do is fail a bit less.

A lot of people who work on those project, end up as burned-out human wrecks. So, even if they are paid well – is it worth it? Or let me ask this another way – if I were to offer you a fat salary to work in conditions that would cut your life expectancy by 10%, would you take it? What if it were 20%? Or 30%? Where would you draw the line?

Lifespan is exactly what I'm fighting for. Giving myself to the pursuit of money is a waste of my life. But starving to death is not a viable option for me. The only solution I see is if I achieve a state where I won't ever have to worry about starving to death, which would give me the option to stop wasting my life. So, no. I would not want to shorten my lifespan by a large degree. However, if you consider that you work like 1/5 of your life, that's essentially how much lifespan was taken away from you. If you offered me a deal where you'd shorten my lifespan for like 5% and give me security for the remainder, I might just accept that.

OK, but what do you propose then? Because the way I see it there is nothing you can do to secure your future at 100%.

If I was in a desert with a bottle of water, I wouldn't feel secure, even if I weren't feeling thirsty at the time. However, if I had a million bottles of water, I would not fear dehydration anymore. I'd feel secure.

The way I see it, and what I personally believe in is that all people should aim for balance in all things.

That's like the exact opposite of what I am as a person. I seek extremes in all things. It's either do or don't. It's either black or white. Not placing myself in a solid position makes me feel insecure about it.

As of yet, I haven’t found a single example in… well, anything really - where aiming at one of the extremes turned out good.

As of yet, I haven't found a single example in... well, anything really - where ignoring a problem is the best solution.

So, in the job example, I would try to find a job that would allow me to make enough money to fulfill my needs,

But if one job managed to do that in half the time, wouldn't that job be better?

and not land me in the loony bin.

If I break a leg when I jump, it's not the gravity's fault. It's my fault for not jumping right. If I can't jump, the solution is to learn how to jump, not to stop jumping for the rest of my life. Weather I break a leg or not is under my control, not under gravity's control. If it's under my control, it's my responsibility. If it's my responsibility, I have to make sure I accomplish the task. Not putting all my focus on it would be negligence.

Some children need their mothers to blow on their wound after they fall before they manage to get up. The others can stand up on their own. The former are weak. The latter are strong. And those who avoid running are weak, as well.

Ending in the loony bin would mean I'm weak. So would avoiding any activity that would increase the chance of lending me there. I'll end up in the loony bin if I'm weak, not if my environment is mean. The moment I start putting the prospects of the loony bin into consideration is the moment I start being weak.

If I couldn’t find it, I would take the one from your example, but I would keep looking for a better one.

If I make X and the person next to me makes 100x, it's hard to accept it. If he can do that job, why couldn't I? It's a problem, and I can't just live with it. I have to take control and fix the situation. If I'm not good enough for that job, I have to become good enough. Every moment I'm not trying is a moment in which I'm failing. In a sense, it feels better to fail while trying. The only solution I see would be if I were to succeed, but that's not possible because it's a death march. It feels as if I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Huk

4919142

Different scenarios have different answers. But in a given scenario, there is the answer that describes the optimal solution for everyone involved, and other possible solutions and aspects. The world is not chaotic. It just looks that way when you lack all the information and the processing power to digest it all.

True as that might be, you are still assuming that for a given problem there is a solution that is optimal for every person living on the planet, regardless of what that person's preferences are. Giving the vast differences between humans, I don’t see how that can be true.

Now, if you were to say that there is always some minimum solution that the majority can agree on, even if they don’t like it (like, for example: majority would say, it’s always better to work a job you hate and have something to eat, then not to work and to starve instead) then yes, but optimal? Hmm…

Through misery, you gain money. Money provides security. Security alleviates misery.

From my perspective, this only works if you balance it all out. For example, if the job you described would earn me a million dollars per month BUT, would take all my free time, then the fact that I would have security would not alleviate my misery. What’s the point of having money, if you have no free time to use it? Sure, I can eat most expensive caviar or other foods, but other than that? Yes, I could afford a yacht… except I could never afford the time to actually use it, same for my car, chopper, or whatever. Of course, if I would be able to pull something like that:

That or take on a job that doesn't pay much, but is somewhat enjoyable. I wouldn't get my security from what it pays because I would already be secured.

Then I guess I could suffer for a few years to gain the security, and then after stashing enough money - change jobs. Unfortunately, the number of easily available jobs that would allow you to earn a lot of cash very quickly is rather low, so for the most people, this is a theoretical scenario at best. But yeah, this one could work.

As of yet, I haven't found a single example in... well, anything really - where ignoring a problem is the best solution.

Striving for a balanced solution is not meant to ignore the problem, but to find an answer that gives you the best of both worlds. For example:

Problem: Cars pollute.
Extreme solution 1: Ban all cars immediately. No cars => no pollution => No problem.
Extreme solution 2: Do nothing, let them pollute, it’s just the cost of modern life.
Balanced solution: Create better cars that pollute less and less. They will still pollute, but at the level that is acceptable to most people.

The balanced solution is not ignoring the problem, but it’s trying to give the best outcome that would be acceptable, by the largest number of people. That’s why IMHO the balanced solutions are usually the best. Of course you can’t please everyone – in the above example, there will still be people calling for complete auto-ban (if not now, then in the near future), and people complaining that the new car designs are compromising performance due to the ecology and they don’t like it.

We are all striving for some sort of balance, even if on an unconscious level, but it is different for each person. You said it yourself:

So, no. I would not want to shorten my lifespan by a large degree. However, if you consider that you work like 1/5 of your life, that's essentially how much lifespan was taken away from you. If you offered me a deal where you'd shorten my lifespan for like 5% and give me security for the remainder, I might just accept that.

So, you are willing to sacrifice a certain amount of something – be it, your life expectancy, your free time or your health – but you do set a borderline you are not willing to cross. For one person, working 40 hours per week is borderline, while for the other 60 is acceptable, and for another, it may be 80 – and there are viable arguments every person can make to convince you that his limit is the optimal one.

But if one job managed to do that in half the time, wouldn't that job be better?

You would have to ask yourself, at what cost – because frankly, there is always a cost. Just like you said earlier, you would be willing to sacrifice 5% of your lifespan, but not more – but for every person that percentage (and things they would be willing to sacrifice) would be different.

That’s why I believe there is no universal: YES or NO answer to that question. Every person, has to answer that himself.

If I make X and the person next to me makes 100x, it's hard to accept it. If he can do that job, why couldn't I? It's a problem, and I can't just live with it. I have to take control and fix the situation.

I guess everybody needs a hobby to worry over something :trollestia:

The only solution I see would be if I were to succeed, but that's not possible because it's a death march. It feels as if I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place.

There is one other solution, although it is pretty hard (at least for me) – stop giving a damn and be happy. Yeah, harder then it seems, isn’t it :unsuresweetie: ?

4920067

True as that might be, you are still assuming that for a given problem there is a solution that is optimal for every person living on the planet, regardless of what that person's preferences are. Giving the vast differences between humans, I don’t see how that can be true.

Different humans produce different situations. Different situations can have differing solutions.

Then I guess I could suffer for a few years to gain the security, and then after stashing enough money - change jobs.

Do you really need a job if you have enough money? You could just have hobbies, instead.

Problem: Cars pollute.
Extreme solution 1: Ban all cars immediately. No cars => no pollution => No problem.
Extreme solution 2: Do nothing, let them pollute, it’s just the cost of modern life.
Balanced solution: Create better cars that pollute less and less. They will still pollute, but at the level that is acceptable to most people.

Just by thinking about the problem means you're not ignoring it.

So, no. I would not want to shorten my lifespan by a large degree. However, if you consider that you work like 1/5 of your life, that's essentially how much lifespan was taken away from you. If you offered me a deal where you'd shorten my lifespan for like 5% and give me security for the remainder, I might just accept that.

So, you are willing to sacrifice a certain amount of something – be it, your life expectancy, your free time or your health – but you do set a borderline you are not willing to cross. For one person, working 40 hours per week is borderline, while for the other 60 is acceptable, and for another, it may be 80 – and there are viable arguments every person can make to convince you that his limit is the optimal one.

If a person has a limit, then perhaps that person is limited. I don't want to be limited. If the problem is in me, then I should fix my problem, not adapt my job to myself. I want to be a part of a cure, not a disease.

I guess everybody needs a hobby to worry over something :trollestia:

I see problems around me, and they're hard to just ignore. I can only have a piece of mind if I fix them. But that drains me.

There is one other solution, although it is pretty hard (at least for me) – stop giving a damn and be happy. Yeah, harder then it seems, isn’t it :unsuresweetie: ?

Again, it's hard to be happy when the chance of starvation lingers in your future. It would be easier if my future was secured.

Ten times zero is still nothing, so no. It is not a sustainable option within the timespan it is presented.

Also:

Imagine having an ability to apply for a job you're way underprepared for (but others have great expectations of you).

I wasn't imagining it, it's only the rest of the post that diverges from current reality.

Huk

4920173

Do you really need a job if you have enough money? You could just have hobbies, instead.

If I had enough money stashed, then no but… I could always hire myself in a job I enjoy and treat it as a hobby – there are some people who actually enjoy their work, you know :duck:

Just by thinking about the problem means you're not ignoring it.

Yes, but what I tried to show here is that there can be multiple solutions for a given problem, but going with the extremes, usually fixes one thing, and breaks others in the process. Imagine, for example, that right now, in some country, eco-extremists would vote overnight that all private transportation except the essentials (delivery, farming etc.) would be banned. Would that solution work for preventing pollution? Maybe… (if the country in question has a very good public transportation for people living outside the cities), but in a more realistic scenario people would probably ignore the ban, or be forced to because they would have no other way to get to work/shop/hospital/etc. Soon, the jail would be full of people whose only crime was to choose between getting to work illegally, or not getting there at all, and starve. All because an extreme solution was chosen.

With the balanced solution, there would be no backlash or it would be reduced to a necessary minimum. IMHO, that’s a win-win for everyone (or rather, the majority).

If a person has a limit, then perhaps that person is limited. I don't want to be limited. If the problem is in me, then I should fix my problem, not adapt my job to myself. I want to be a part of a cure, not a disease.

No matter how hard you try, you will reach a certain limit sooner or later. Could you work 60 hours per week and live a normal life? Yeah, some people do. What about 80? What about 140? Assuming, you would have a bed in your workplace, it could work (some large game companies, use this tactic during crunch time), but you would burn out very quickly because human body NEEDS regeneration. Whether its muscles that need to regrow after a physical work or brain that needs to clear itself after using it for too long, the rest is a necessity, not a whim.

Sadly, our bodies can be pushed only so far – of course, the fact that some people are not pushing them AT ALL is a completely different matter. Here, I could quote myself on how important it is to balance everything :ajsmug:

I see problems around me, and they're hard to just ignore. I can only have a piece of mind if I fix them. But that drains me.

Been there, done that (or rather, I am there every few months and doing that constantly), unfortunately, some problems are unfixable. It’s sad, but I know I will never be another Elon Musk (too stupid) or Donald Trump (too honest to sell people bullshit propaganda), but this could work:

pics.me.me/youre-always-so-diligent-about-your-new-years-resolutions-twenty-29921598.png

:trollestia:

Again, it's hard to be happy when the chance of starvation lingers in your future. It would be easier if my future was secured.

Does it really :unsuresweetie: ? Remind me who said that:

Huk In the modern day and age, you can survive with zero money without ever going hungry. Every $ you make is just a bonus.

:rainbowwild: ?

4922548

With the balanced solution, there would be no backlash or it would be reduced to a necessary minimum.

What's the difference beteween a half-assed solution and a balanced one?

Sadly, our bodies can be pushed only so far

At least you can have a clear conscience if you push to the limit.

this could work

Being mediocre sounds like doing things halfway, not trying to excel.

Again, it's hard to be happy when the chance of starvation lingers in your future. It would be easier if my future was secured.

Huk In the modern day and age, you can survive with zero money without ever going hungry. Every $ you make is just a bonus.

Well, starvation is just an example I gave. My actual fear is lack of computer. Computers fail and you have to change them several times in one's lifetime. I want to know that I'll have computers for the rest of my life.

Huk

4922580

What's the difference beteween a half-assed solution and a balanced one?

You would have to define what do you mean by a half-assed solution. For me that would be a solution that doesn’t actually attempt to fix the problem at all, or is fixing the problem on paper, but not in real conditions.

Getting back to the car example - if someone would propose a filter that in a controlled environment, catches 100% of all emissions but in real world catches next to nothing then that would be a half-assed solution to me. I would prefer something that catches only 30-50% of pollution but works consistently in real-world conditions. Yes, 100% would be desirable, and we should be aiming to get there, but at the same time, we should take in the consideration, how our choices will affect everyone involved, so we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

At least you can have a clear conscience if you push to the limit.

Sure, but if you try to push way over the limit (which, the initial death-march job example is clearly doing), then you may end up rewarded by your own pine box and 3 meters of dirt :unsuresweetie:

When I started running, I didn’t know when to stop, and one day I messed up something in my knee pretty badly. Only then, I learned that I need to give my legs some time to regenerate – especially if I never run long distances before. A week later, when my knee was not hurting that bad anymore, I decided to run again… only to end up with renewing the injury and almost landing in the hospital.

That is a real-world example (and a pretty painful one too) on how important it is not to over-do it :rainbowdetermined2:

Being mediocre sounds like doing things halfway, not trying to excel.

Yes, but if that is enough for someone to sustain himself and be happy, then why should he try to excel? If everyone were to excel then the bar would only keep rising to infinity, but the capabilities of an average human would not (well, they would, but it would probably take tousands of years of evolution to notice). We would all end up in the endless rat race – thank you, but nope… I prefer mediocrity any day :duck:

Well, starvation is just an example I gave. My actual fear is lack of computer. Computers fail and you have to change them several times in one's lifetime. I want to know that I'll have computers for the rest of my life.

You will always find something to worry about if you want to, such is life.

4922617

You would have to define what do you mean by a half-assed solution. For me that would be a solution that doesn’t actually attempt to fix the problem at all, or is fixing the problem on paper, but not in real conditions.

I think half-assed solutions are those who only fix part of the problem despite there being a potential to fix all of it. Your 100% emissions filter is an example of that. If I was a car manufacturer, I'd have a hard time installing a 30% filter if there was a 100% one available at the same price. If there is an optimal solution available, I strive to choose that one.

At least you can have a clear conscience if you push to the limit.

A week later, when my knee was not hurting that bad anymore, I decided to run again… only to end up with renewing the injury and almost landing in the hospital.

Add preparations for a marathon, and you have yourself a dilemma. One one side you could take it easy and half-ass the training, but then you doom your chances of winning the marathon. Or you could try to overcome by training really hard in which case you will also probably lose. It's kind of a no-win scenario. You're screwed no matter what you do.

We would all end up in the endless rat race – thank you, but nope… I prefer mediocrity any day

At least in an endless rat race, we'd have a chance to get unstuck. To change things. Make them better. It's hard to move forward if you're not pushing forward. There's a story I once wrote that kind of fits here.

There was a tribe settled in a valley. They knew that in springtime, the snow on the mountains will melt and the river will flood. It's been like that every year.

One winter, the snow just kept falling and the mountains were full of it. They haven't seen so much snow in 20 years combined. The chiftain said, "let's deepen the river before the spring, else the river will kill us all in the spring."

A twelve-year-old retard came up to him and said, "But that's like in the future. How about we use that time to jerk each other, instead? It surely will make us more happy in the short-term."

"You're stupid," concluded the chieftain.

The villagers, however, sided with the twelve-year-old retard. When the spring came, everyone drowned horribly.

You will always find something to worry about if you want to, such is life.

If something is wrong, I can't just ignore it. I can't eat my cake while my house is burning. I first want to put out the fire and only after then enjoy my cake.

How can you justify things being wrong and not working full time to fix them? How can you unwind and relax in the world of decay?

Login or register to comment
Join our Patreon to remove these adverts!