Would you rather live 10 years longer or earn double your current salary?

[bfdd]

10 good years? Sure, I'd give up the money. 10 years of terrible health and just being alive? I'd take the money and die early.

im with bignate

 

[Schfifty Five]

The poll says the job would be much more demanding overall; in very varying degrees of weather, and it'd be physically demanding. I'm not taking his example, as the only thing that would apply would be an odd construction job. Jobs that pay more typically demand more of you in terms of the time you have to work and you'll have higher physical exhaustion. They're not demanding of you as far as how much physical strength you have, like a construction job would.

But that's the question and situation he's presenting/asking.

Would you rather have $50k, cush job, and live to 80?

or $100K, miserable/very demanding job, live to 70?

That is very different than asking:

$50K, live to 80

or $100k, live to 70.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

But that's the question and situation he's presenting/asking.

Would you rather have $50k, cush job, and live to 80?

or $100K, miserable/very demanding job, live to 70?

That is very different than asking:

$50K, live to 80

or $100k, live to 70.

No. Having to live with a lot of pressure and expectations is not the same thing when you couple it with a job that demands a lot of physical strength. Hopefully, only a few odd construction jobs exist that require this as well.

Anyway, if you're on a higher pay, you'll be able to afford better healthcare, and even though you'll have less time, you'll have higher quality time since you have more economic freedom. Those last 10 years from 70-80 are the really shitty ones, anyway, so I wouldn't care about them.

Like someone else said, given the fact that life is short anyway: quality life>quantity of life.

 

[JEDI]

poll is 64 votes, and 50%/50%!

1st atot poll i've seen thats anywhere near even

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

I started thinking about the original question.

Would you rather live 10 years longer or earn double your current salary?

The pole has little connection but, back to the question. I could easily double my current salary by returning to work for a corporation but, I believe the added stress and bullshit would easily shorten my life by more than ten years. Especially, if I gave in to my desire to hang the manager responsible out the window (that only happened once before, honest).

 

[KingstonU]

poll is 64 votes, and 50%/50%!

1st atot poll i've seen thats anywhere near even

Yes I am quite shocked at how evenly split this is. It's not that I was predicting a certain response from people or didn't expect a polarity in opinions but I didn't think it would be split down the middle.

Another interesting aspect I am getting from the responses (though it's obvious once you think about it) is that it brings to light the fact that, the less you are used to having, the less you need to be happy.

 

[Schfifty Five]

No. Having to live with a lot of pressure and expectations is not the same thing when you couple it with a job that demands a lot of physical strength. Hopefully, only a few odd construction jobs exist that require this as well.

Anyway, if you're on a higher pay, you'll be able to afford better healthcare, and even though you'll have less time, you'll have higher quality time since you have more economic freedom. Those last 10 years from 70-80 are the really shitty ones, anyway, so I wouldn't care about them.

Like someone else said, given the fact that life is short anyway: quality life>quantity of life.

In the op, he says that you will die 10 years sooner due to living in extreme conditions, bad food, more physical, etc.

So the way I'm reading it is that you get double salary, but lose 10 years of your life due to shitty miserable conditions.

 

[Bateluer]

Does that 'little' salary get cost of living increases to go along with that longer life span?

I think I'd take the longer life/lower pay regardless.

 

[alkemyst]

Based on the original question....$100k without the harshness.

I don't know if I really want to live to 80 at only a $100k salary even.

I am thinking most that answered not only don't understand the question, but don't understand how much more another $50k buys one per year.

That said I know people turning down automatic $5-10K raises [stupidly].

Makes it easier for me.

I seriously doubt one will make it to 70 in the conditions described though.

 

[Newbian]

Have to remember that you stop getting said salary in most cases around 50 so the last 30 years won't be as fun having little money as the 20 years having a lot more.

 

[Gooberlx2]

Hmmm.

Given my current job, which i like, I'd take a shorter life at more pay. But if this higher paying job is going to make my lengthy working life suck, and give me miserable chronic health conditions in my short retired life...then fuck that. Manual/skilled labor and harsh conditions doesn't make me assume either though.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

In the op, he says that you will die 10 years sooner due to living in extreme conditions, bad food, more physical, etc.

So the way I'm reading it is that you get double salary, but lose 10 years of your life due to shitty miserable conditions.

Maybe you're not reading, but again: such a job only exists in construction. Therefore, I don't care for what the rest of the OP says.

The grand majority of high paying jobs demand of you in expectations and will cause physical exhaustion from doing a lot of work, but they don't require you to have high physical strength or be in miserable conditions.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

That depends. 10 more years of shitting my pants in a nursing home or 10 years of good health?

 

[lxskllr]

Fuck killing myself for work. I want a job where I do as little as possible, and make enough money to get by. I don't care when I die. Whether it's tomorrow, or in 60 years. Dead is dead, and nothing matters after you do it.

 

[KingstonU]

[/B] ...such a job only exists in construction. ... The grand majority of high paying jobs demand of you in expectations and will cause physical exhaustion from doing a lot of work, but they don't require you to have high physical strength or be in miserable conditions.

First part in bold is not true. Certainly construction meets these descriptions, but there are other jobs that do so as well.

That being said, I have no problem with people dissecting the scenario in various ways, omitting or inserting details to alter the scenario actually provides more context on which factors are more important to some points of view.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

First part in bold is not true. Certainly construction meets these descriptions, but there are other jobs that do so as well.

That being said, I have no problem with people dissecting the scenario in various ways, omitting or inserting details to alter the scenario actually provides more context on which factors are more important to some points of view.

I don't see any examples in your comment. Even if you DO have them, though, it doesn't change the general picture. >90% of high-paying jobs don't require a lot of physical strength, but do require you to handle a lot of stress.

 

[Schfifty Five]

[/B]

Maybe you're not reading, but again: such a job only exists in construction. Therefore, I don't care for what the rest of the OP says.

The grand majority of high paying jobs demand of you in expectations and will cause physical exhaustion from doing a lot of work, but they don't require you to have high physical strength or be in miserable conditions.

Why wouldn't you follow the rules of the OP?

He asks you to make a choice based on certain conditions in his OP. If you ignore those, then you go away from the original intent of the OP.

Edit: I'm not disagreeing with you that most likely only in construction would such a horrible job exist, but I think ignoring the fact the reason you lose 10 years of your life is because of miserable conditions makes the OP completely different.

 

[ksheets]

I was going to pick the higher paying job, but after finding out my best friend died this morning of an aneurism I think ill take the extra 10 years.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

Why wouldn't you follow the rules of the OP?

He asks you to make a choice based on certain conditions in his OP. If you ignore those, then you go away from the original intent of the OP.

Edit: I'm not disagreeing with you that most likely only in construction would such a horrible job exist, but I think ignoring the fact the reason you lose 10 years of your life is because of miserable conditions makes the OP completely different.

Let's see... hmm... perhaps because such conditions would only exist in 0.1% of high-paying jobs?

The conditions the OP put are some that are nearly non-existent. I'm just mentioning how it'd be in an average scenario.

 

[Googer]

I'll take option C:

Live like royalty, have eveythig fed to you by a butler with a silver spoon.

 

[DirkGently1]

Can i have quadruple pay and 20 years less life?

Win/Win if possible!

Edit: Could i be stinking rich for one year and then die after that? That'd be nice.

 

[Anubis]

seeing as most people in my family live into their 90s id gladly take 10 years off that to get paid more

 

[Jaskalas]

In my 70s? Consider me sold on option B.

I don't give two !@#$s about being 80.

 

[bhanson]

Trying not to get too specific but here is the scenario:

Option A: Have a normal desk job that pays, say $50K/year, and most likely live into your 80's.

Option B: Have a job that is much more taxing on your body, but pays double, so like $100K/year.

You are more likely to die earlier, say by 10 years so in your 70's, due to always working the majority of your days in environments of extreme cold/heat (-60'F to 122'F, or -50'C to 50'C), exposure to all the elements like rain/hail/snow/high humidity, breathing in dust, exposure to many chemicals, heavy lifting, using large & dangerous equipment (often in poor working condition) and often not having the healthiest food options.

No thanks. I wouldn't do that for $200k AND with the same life expectancy.