If you had to choose between having a career and...

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: Qosis
One of my best friends family isn't extremely well off. They aren't poor, but his parents sent him to very expensive schools which ate up a lot of their income. He's now a second year student at Georgetown, and was accepted to every university he applied to (excluding Princeton, but he did get into Harvard). I don't think I have ever met someone, of the same age, who is so intelligent and has so much potential in life. But, and this really isn't meant to be a low blow, your job is far from fulfilling in my eyes. You don't do something noble, something that benefits society as a whole. Something that I could understand one would sacrifice financial wealth for, because the inner "wealth" from the job is so much greater.

Income isn't the only way I interpret success. I think it is vital to thoroughly enjoy your job, and have accomplished as much as you are capable of accomplishing. Taking every opportunity which you can benefit from, and working hard on a regular basis.

However, it is difficult for someone to measure those other types of success because they are so subjective. Is your job really so fulfilling that you love doing it? That you wake up every morning eager to get to work? That is another type of success in my eyes, but I highly doubt that you have that success. I am sure you will ultimately say that yes, your job is incredibly satisfying and you can't see yourself doing anything else. Who am I to refute that after highlighting my dislike for baseless insults? But to be completely honest, I won't believe you. You obviously won't capitulate and be genuinely honest if it is going to affect your argument in any way.

What a cop-out. If I say yes, I'm lying. If I say no, I'm a hypocrite. :roll:

I've made FAR more than my earnings doing IT work for the military, but I find it infinitely more satisfying and I don't have to throw money around to make myself happy. Something you don't seem to understand. If you didn't you wouldn't look down on people with less money than you do.

 

[DAGTA]

Originally posted by: Qosis

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: Qosis
So, based on that, if two individuals are born into families with vastly different income brackets, the accomplishments of the wealthier one (assuming both accomplish the exact same goal) are somehow inferior?

Let's make this easier for you. One person starts at point A, and makes it to point C. Another person starts at point B and makes it to point C. The first person's accomplishments are greater than the second person's accomplishments because they had to work harder and do more to get to the same point. Make sense?

I don't buy into that. I think it's unfair to minimize an individuals accomplishments because of factors that are beyond their control. I think the first individuals achievements are exemplary, but I don't think the second individuals achievements are any less remarkable.

So it's unfair of you to look down upon the accomplishments of poor people because they were born into poor families?

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: Qosis

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: Qosis
So, based on that, if two individuals are born into families with vastly different income brackets, the accomplishments of the wealthier one (assuming both accomplish the exact same goal) are somehow inferior?

Let's make this easier for you. One person starts at point A, and makes it to point C. Another person starts at point B and makes it to point C. The first person's accomplishments are greater than the second person's accomplishments because they had to work harder and do more to get to the same point. Make sense?

I don't buy into that. I think it's unfair to minimize an individuals accomplishments because of factors that are beyond their control. I think the first individuals achievements are exemplary, but I don't think the second individuals achievements are any less remarkable.

But they ARE less remarkable. Nobody's saying that the second person's accomplishments are completely worthless, they're just not as substantial as the first.

It's funny that you bring the whole "beyond their control" bit into the conversation.

 

[etalns]

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: Qosis
One of my best friends family isn't extremely well off. They aren't poor, but his parents sent him to very expensive schools which ate up a lot of their income. He's now a second year student at Georgetown, and was accepted to every university he applied to (excluding Princeton, but he did get into Harvard). I don't think I have ever met someone, of the same age, who is so intelligent and has so much potential in life. But, and this really isn't meant to be a low blow, your job is far from fulfilling in my eyes. You don't do something noble, something that benefits society as a whole. Something that I could understand one would sacrifice financial wealth for, because the inner "wealth" from the job is so much greater.

Income isn't the only way I interpret success. I think it is vital to thoroughly enjoy your job, and have accomplished as much as you are capable of accomplishing. Taking every opportunity which you can benefit from, and working hard on a regular basis.

However, it is difficult for someone to measure those other types of success because they are so subjective. Is your job really so fulfilling that you love doing it? That you wake up every morning eager to get to work? That is another type of success in my eyes, but I highly doubt that you have that success. I am sure you will ultimately say that yes, your job is incredibly satisfying and you can't see yourself doing anything else. Who am I to refute that after highlighting my dislike for baseless insults? But to be completely honest, I won't believe you. You obviously won't capitulate and be genuinely honest if it is going to affect your argument in any way.

What a cop-out. If I say yes, I'm lying. If I say no, I'm a hypocrite. :roll:

At the end of the day there is no way to definitively conclude whether you are being honest or not. It's an unfortunate consequence of dealing with subjective issues. But it's better this than making baseless conclusions. I'm sure you will have a field day with those last two words; be my guest.

 

[etalns]

Originally posted by: DAGTA

Originally posted by: Qosis

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: Qosis
So, based on that, if two individuals are born into families with vastly different income brackets, the accomplishments of the wealthier one (assuming both accomplish the exact same goal) are somehow inferior?

Let's make this easier for you. One person starts at point A, and makes it to point C. Another person starts at point B and makes it to point C. The first person's accomplishments are greater than the second person's accomplishments because they had to work harder and do more to get to the same point. Make sense?

I don't buy into that. I think it's unfair to minimize an individuals accomplishments because of factors that are beyond their control. I think the first individuals achievements are exemplary, but I don't think the second individuals achievements are any less remarkable.

So it's unfair of you to look down upon the accomplishments of poor people because they were born into poor families?

Where have I said that I look down on their accomplishments?

 

[etalns]

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: Qosis

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: Qosis
So, based on that, if two individuals are born into families with vastly different income brackets, the accomplishments of the wealthier one (assuming both accomplish the exact same goal) are somehow inferior?

Let's make this easier for you. One person starts at point A, and makes it to point C. Another person starts at point B and makes it to point C. The first person's accomplishments are greater than the second person's accomplishments because they had to work harder and do more to get to the same point. Make sense?

I don't buy into that. I think it's unfair to minimize an individuals accomplishments because of factors that are beyond their control. I think the first individuals achievements are exemplary, but I don't think the second individuals achievements are any less remarkable.

But they ARE less remarkable. Nobody's saying that the second person's accomplishments are completely worthless, they're just not as substantial as the first.

It's funny that you bring the whole "beyond their control" bit into the conversation.

I'm sorry, I don't share that perspective.

 

[DAGTA]

Originally posted by: Qosis

Where have I said that I look down on their accomplishments?

Perhaps it's truly news to you but your attitude earlier in this thread came off as very condescending.

 

[blakeatwork]

right now, the second, and work my way into something in between....

5 years ago, the first

 

[etalns]

Originally posted by: DAGTA

Originally posted by: Qosis

Where have I said that I look down on their accomplishments?

Perhaps it's truly news to you but your attitude earlier in this thread came off as very condescending.

Oh no, I'm quite aware of that. However, being condescending doesn't mean I view a poor individuals accomplishments as inferior.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: Qosis

Originally posted by: Nik
But they ARE less remarkable. Nobody's saying that the second person's accomplishments are completely worthless, they're just not as substantial as the first.

It's funny that you bring the whole "beyond their control" bit into the conversation.

I'm sorry, I don't share that perspective.

Of course you don't. That's because you measure the worth of a man by the size of his pocket book. Money is the only thing that means anything to you.

 

[DAGTA]

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: Qosis

Originally posted by: Nik
But they ARE less remarkable. Nobody's saying that the second person's accomplishments are completely worthless, they're just not as substantial as the first.

It's funny that you bring the whole "beyond their control" bit into the conversation.

I'm sorry, I don't share that perspective.

Of course you don't. That's because you measure the worth of a man by the size of his pocket book. Money is the only thing that means anything to you.

Maybe Qosis is a woman in disguise! :Q

Qosis: I'm teasing, it's not meant as a cut.

 

[etalns]

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: Qosis

Originally posted by: Nik
But they ARE less remarkable. Nobody's saying that the second person's accomplishments are completely worthless, they're just not as substantial as the first.

It's funny that you bring the whole "beyond their control" bit into the conversation.

I'm sorry, I don't share that perspective.

Of course you don't. That's because you measure the worth of a man by the size of his pocket book. Money is the only thing that means anything to you.

I'll refer you to my previous statements. Find me another objective way to measure success, which is equally (if not more) accurate, and I will share your view. However, I do realize that there are some jobs which are obviously not pursued for money. Pro-bono legal work, civil servant, etc. Unfortunately for you, minimum wage IT work is not one of them.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: Qosis
I'll refer you to my previous statements. Find me another objective way to measure success, which is equally (if not more) accurate, and I will share your view. However, I do realize that there are some jobs which are obviously not pursued for money. Pro-bono legal work, civil servant, etc. Unfortunately for you, minimum wage IT work is not one of them.

In your irrational eyes, of course it is. You see a difference between civil servants and my "minimum wage IT work" because of the paycheck. You can't get past the money, which is why it won't matter what job I would say.

 

[GeekDrew]

The fault in all of this is trying to measure success: it's subjective, and cannot objectively be measured in a way that will satisfy most.

 

[etalns]

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: Qosis
I'll refer you to my previous statements. Find me another objective way to measure success, which is equally (if not more) accurate, and I will share your view. However, I do realize that there are some jobs which are obviously not pursued for money. Pro-bono legal work, civil servant, etc. Unfortunately for you, minimum wage IT work is not one of them.

In your irrational eyes, of course it is. You see a difference between civil servants and my "minimum wage IT work" because of the paycheck. You can't get past the money, which is why it won't matter what job I would say.

Hmm, I imagine people who do "pro-bono legal work" make less money than you. I see a difference because they do a job that actually helps people. I can see how many people would find that job much more rewarding than any amount of money.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: Qosis

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: Qosis
I'll refer you to my previous statements. Find me another objective way to measure success, which is equally (if not more) accurate, and I will share your view. However, I do realize that there are some jobs which are obviously not pursued for money. Pro-bono legal work, civil servant, etc. Unfortunately for you, minimum wage IT work is not one of them.

In your irrational eyes, of course it is. You see a difference between civil servants and my "minimum wage IT work" because of the paycheck. You can't get past the money, which is why it won't matter what job I would say.

Hmm, I imagine people who do "pro-bono legal work" make less money than you. I see a difference because they do a job that actually helps people. I can see how many people would find that job much more rewarding than any amount of money.

No you can't. If you could, you'd realize that it's possible to be that rewarding without having less than a "pathetic $8/hr job."

 

[etalns]

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: Qosis

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: Qosis
I'll refer you to my previous statements. Find me another objective way to measure success, which is equally (if not more) accurate, and I will share your view. However, I do realize that there are some jobs which are obviously not pursued for money. Pro-bono legal work, civil servant, etc. Unfortunately for you, minimum wage IT work is not one of them.

In your irrational eyes, of course it is. You see a difference between civil servants and my "minimum wage IT work" because of the paycheck. You can't get past the money, which is why it won't matter what job I would say.

Hmm, I imagine people who do "pro-bono legal work" make less money than you. I see a difference because they do a job that actually helps people. I can see how many people would find that job much more rewarding than any amount of money.

No you can't. If you could, you'd realize that it's possible to be that rewarding without having less than a "pathetic $8/hr job."

*insert request here to not make baseless assumptions*.

Uhh... I just said that you can have a rewarding life without a high paying job. Reading comprehension isn't a strong characteristic in those employed at minimum wage.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: Qosis
*insert request here to not make baseless assumptions*.

Uhh... I just said that you can have a rewarding life without a high paying job. Reading comprehension isn't a strong characteristic in those employed at minimum wage.

Obviously not because you keep saying belitting things about those who make less than you do, which completely supports my point. Thanks.

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: Qosis

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: Qosis
It's amazing how many assumptions you make. Do you genuinely think you can make a convincing argument about your intellectual superiority when you have never even met me? Heck, I have never even spoken to you before this very moment.

You're making the point that accomplishments and wealth are everything. When he's just as wealthy as you are, he'll still be one-up on you because you've ridden at the top on mommy's and daddy's coat tails instead of accomplishing it yourself. His point made valid by your own argument.

So, based on that, if two individuals are born into families with vastly different income brackets, the accomplishments of the wealthier one (assuming both accomplish the exact same goal) are somehow inferior?

If by "accomplishment" you mean daddy giving money to the spoiled rich kid to start one of his many failed businesses, then yes; that is considered inferior to the one that worked himself to the bone for five years to get his starting capital to start his business with his own hard earned money.

That is my subjective opinion

 

[Xyclone]

ummm..... #1!!!

 

[DainBramaged]

I'd go for #2 no problem.

 

[etalns]

Bump!

 

[HardcoreRobot]

#1, I wouldn't care for the standard of living making minimum wage and supporting children. I dont like the idea of not being able to take care of them should something terrible happen, or not being able to help them in school et.


I would gladly give up some of the 500k though for love.

 

[radioouman]

#1

 

[DaShen]

You can't sustain a family on love alone. Sorry, can't happen. I wouldn't want to put my kids through having to live in the projects if I had a choice. That is just irresponsible.

**EDIT**

Now if you meant a decent job where I can at least provide for my family and have my kids grow up in a safe environment (not neccessarily rich environment), then I would pick #2. But a job at Walmart will provide my kids with a trailer home that I have a mortgage on. No thank you.