4 ms·

You would work 1-2 years and retire for rest of your life. Then you can focus on your art and passions.

Broken_Hippo 9y ago
If such a place actually pays that much, sure - but at that point, I'm making well over 6 figures. Most jobs in Indiana were paying less than 100k and still requiring 60-80 hour workweeks. The odds might be better than the lottery, but they are still pretty astronomical.
- sauronlord 9y ago
  The odds of winning the lottery are better than improving yourself and taking control of the value you provide to people?
  - Broken_Hippo 9y ago
    Improving yourself is a different thing: That's free, and I can use my free time to do that. And I do. The value I provide people? That's a weird thing to look at. I mean, I don't generally cause people issues at a workplace and I make sure I do whatever I am doing for work to the best of my ability. I like to make others' jobs easier as well when possible. That's just standard operating procedure. But lets face it: Most jobs pay average pay for their field. Most average pay isn't exactly "get rich" pay. The odds of getting really high pay - the sorts that would make me retire early - are even fewer, especially the sort that don't expect years of 60-80 hour workweeks to get to that point. These are the jobs that have astronomical odds to land, especially if you are in your late 30's now. Not quite lotto odds, but still bad enough not to bet your life on. Most times, it just doesn't seem worth it. And to tell you the truth, if this were something I wanted, I'd not have moved to Norway. I'm not a skilled worker, and though I've taken a couple of years of language courses, my options are limited. On the other hand, I enjoy the hell out of my life - which is all I really wanted anyway. Value I provide people? Psh. I can volunteer to spend time with elderly folks that want company. Still fufilling without having to give up my entire life.
    - sauronlord 9y ago
      You took the whole "value provided" into a strange direction. Money is a number of things. It is also captured reciprocal altruism, the "value" you provide is often times compensated with money. (Not always) "Landing a job" That language makes it seem like you fall into, stumble across, or get "lucky" to work for another man or woman (ie: a JOB) That language and thinking is precisely what is holding people back from delivering on their life's work and maximizing the value provided to society. "Giving up my entire life" Did Steve Jobs, Ghandi, Mandela, Lincoln "give up their lives"? This is all perspective. A man with a Mission will not burn out. Better yet, a man with a Mission, autonomy and serious income does not burn out.
      - Broken_Hippo 9y ago
        These folks aren't the same. I can't comment on whether or not Lincoln worked too much as I know little about his working habits compared to the standard of the times. Mandela and ghandi are both not quite your normal workers - and honestly outliers. Most folks who helped free slaves are forgotten, after all. As are most people, regardless of what they did with their life. This isn't cynical, just reflective of reality. Jobs is the closest to what folks would model themselves after. And sure, he was successful and world-changing. But most folks aren't: Again, he's an anomaly. It isn't that that sort of path is impossible, but realistically speaking, most of us won't get there. And I do think he probably worked too much, as do most CEO's. I hope he was happy, but I've never found such a thing to be so. "That language makes it seem like you fall into, stumble across, or get "lucky" to work for another man or woman (ie: a JOB)" The truth is, this sort of job is what most people have. It isn't that folks don't put in work or try. It is that a lot of "making it" depends on things outside of your control, such as where you were born, the government where you live, how rich your parents were, the quality of school you went to, whether or not folks like you, health, timing and other such things I'm sure I forgot. It isn't that you can't do things, but realistically not everyone can get to where any of the folks you mentioned were. Most of us are average, working average jobs for some average manager. This isn't even a bad thing: I've enjoyed most jobs I have had. I liked working at a school kitchen. I liked working at a pharmacy, and find retail to be fun as much as frustrating. I liked being a CNA at a nursing home - especially that (and too bad the pay is usually low and you feel overworked at 40 hours/week). These things don't have paths to riches or to anything on the scale of the people you mentioned. Fufilling or not, I'd still not work any of these for 60-80 hours a week. It is still work. Of course, it might just be that I chase different sorts of dreams, and have never really found a field that both has actual opportunity for decent money and I like enough to do that much per week. Even then I would refuse: My favorite thing is producing artwork, but doing so for 50-80 hours a week puts me at risk of not being able to use my dominant hand well later in life, as artwork is really hard on the hand, wrist, and elbow joints. I already am reaping that "reward" with mild tennis elbow that occasionally flares up, and I'm only in my late 30's. Oops :)

If such a place actually pays that much, sure - but at that point, I'm making well over 6 figures. Most jobs in Indiana were paying less than 100k and still requiring 60-80 hour workweeks. The odds might be better than the lottery, but they are still pretty astronomical.

sauronlord 9y ago
The odds of winning the lottery are better than improving yourself and taking control of the value you provide to people?
- Broken_Hippo 9y ago
  Improving yourself is a different thing: That's free, and I can use my free time to do that. And I do. The value I provide people? That's a weird thing to look at. I mean, I don't generally cause people issues at a workplace and I make sure I do whatever I am doing for work to the best of my ability. I like to make others' jobs easier as well when possible. That's just standard operating procedure. But lets face it: Most jobs pay average pay for their field. Most average pay isn't exactly "get rich" pay. The odds of getting really high pay - the sorts that would make me retire early - are even fewer, especially the sort that don't expect years of 60-80 hour workweeks to get to that point. These are the jobs that have astronomical odds to land, especially if you are in your late 30's now. Not quite lotto odds, but still bad enough not to bet your life on. Most times, it just doesn't seem worth it. And to tell you the truth, if this were something I wanted, I'd not have moved to Norway. I'm not a skilled worker, and though I've taken a couple of years of language courses, my options are limited. On the other hand, I enjoy the hell out of my life - which is all I really wanted anyway. Value I provide people? Psh. I can volunteer to spend time with elderly folks that want company. Still fufilling without having to give up my entire life.
  - sauronlord 9y ago
    You took the whole "value provided" into a strange direction. Money is a number of things. It is also captured reciprocal altruism, the "value" you provide is often times compensated with money. (Not always) "Landing a job" That language makes it seem like you fall into, stumble across, or get "lucky" to work for another man or woman (ie: a JOB) That language and thinking is precisely what is holding people back from delivering on their life's work and maximizing the value provided to society. "Giving up my entire life" Did Steve Jobs, Ghandi, Mandela, Lincoln "give up their lives"? This is all perspective. A man with a Mission will not burn out. Better yet, a man with a Mission, autonomy and serious income does not burn out.
    - Broken_Hippo 9y ago
      These folks aren't the same. I can't comment on whether or not Lincoln worked too much as I know little about his working habits compared to the standard of the times. Mandela and ghandi are both not quite your normal workers - and honestly outliers. Most folks who helped free slaves are forgotten, after all. As are most people, regardless of what they did with their life. This isn't cynical, just reflective of reality. Jobs is the closest to what folks would model themselves after. And sure, he was successful and world-changing. But most folks aren't: Again, he's an anomaly. It isn't that that sort of path is impossible, but realistically speaking, most of us won't get there. And I do think he probably worked too much, as do most CEO's. I hope he was happy, but I've never found such a thing to be so. "That language makes it seem like you fall into, stumble across, or get "lucky" to work for another man or woman (ie: a JOB)" The truth is, this sort of job is what most people have. It isn't that folks don't put in work or try. It is that a lot of "making it" depends on things outside of your control, such as where you were born, the government where you live, how rich your parents were, the quality of school you went to, whether or not folks like you, health, timing and other such things I'm sure I forgot. It isn't that you can't do things, but realistically not everyone can get to where any of the folks you mentioned were. Most of us are average, working average jobs for some average manager. This isn't even a bad thing: I've enjoyed most jobs I have had. I liked working at a school kitchen. I liked working at a pharmacy, and find retail to be fun as much as frustrating. I liked being a CNA at a nursing home - especially that (and too bad the pay is usually low and you feel overworked at 40 hours/week). These things don't have paths to riches or to anything on the scale of the people you mentioned. Fufilling or not, I'd still not work any of these for 60-80 hours a week. It is still work. Of course, it might just be that I chase different sorts of dreams, and have never really found a field that both has actual opportunity for decent money and I like enough to do that much per week. Even then I would refuse: My favorite thing is producing artwork, but doing so for 50-80 hours a week puts me at risk of not being able to use my dominant hand well later in life, as artwork is really hard on the hand, wrist, and elbow joints. I already am reaping that "reward" with mild tennis elbow that occasionally flares up, and I'm only in my late 30's. Oops :)