Not even close. Average would be a much better description. But I also want to be more than average and don’t understand people who are happy with a B. You’re not a failure and in fact you have built a nice life for yourself but I wouldn’t call it the goal.
This is actually much closer to my thoughts then the wild inferiority complex presented here:
Mediocre as in modest, middle class, average. Basically the lifestyles everyone described. Not that they are “bad” or “unhappy”. I guess what I was thinking was that a lot of jobs are kind of just sort of “meh”. Not particularly interesting. Don’t pay well. Maybe dealing with a lot of jerks or idiots. I suppose there is some element in all jobs to some extent.
I think the thought process (at least what I’ve observed) is that you go to a good school to make you more competitive for “good jobs”. Maybe you tolerate working long hours or extensive travel because even if you don’t want to spend your career as a banker or Deloitte consultant, it can be a stepping stone to good jobs where you don’t have to kill yourself.
If there is anything people should have learned this pandemic it is respect the people in the service industry because they keep the country going. If you can’t show some respect, you should probably not use any of their services.
Because you’re not focusing on MY priority. I’m not defined by the job that pays my rent, although so many people are.
The job I do to pay the rent is just that - the job that pays the rent. A means to an end. The end is for me is something else. If I worked the 80-100 a week job I might have lot of money but I wouldn’t have time - time to do the things I really want, things that don’t pay the rent but bring me the greatest happiness in life.
That’s the downside with being a creative type - even if you’re good at it, you might not get significant recognition until after you’re dead (see Van Gogh). My late spouse was a professional musician and he was good enough to make a living at it… but not fabulously wealthy, which is how a LOT of people measure success.
At times my creative endeavors have brought in money, but there have been long dry spells as far as financial success, so in between I have to have a job that pays the rent. That’s the nature of such a profession.
I used to make three times what I currently do working in corporate America. I dealt with just as many jerks and a-holes as I do in retail, with even less protection from the worst of them than I currently have.
Or you get a “meh” job where you never have to kill yourself with long hours so you have the money and time to do something other than chase the dollar.
My mom used to have “meh” jobs because she needed to bring a little more money into the household, but for her the primary requirement wasn’t the dollars per hour but that she was no more than 15 minutes from home in case her kids needed her suddenly. No way was she going to take a 80-100 hour a week job because her primary goal in life wasn’t the money but raising her kids. Which to my mind is a pretty good goal in life but hey, she’s not making lots of money or a high power career so she’s “just” a housewife/mother “settling” for a mediocre life.
Well, all those people in high-power jobs or with money are important, doncha know? Those “little people” are there to serve them. If they do a good job give 'em a pat on the head, the little dears. Sure, they’re important, but they aren’t a success, they’re just settling for a mediocre lifestyle. [/sarcasm]
@Oredigger77 and @msmith537 are unaware of how their word choices show their bias and how they regard those who don’t run the rat race and play keep up with the Joneses as lesser beings.
These things aren’t necessarily correlated to working 80 hours a week. I’ve worked on highly complex technical problems my entire career, and the period where I did work insane hours (though not 80 hours a week insane) was correlated with the least interesting technical work.
Since highly technical work is not screwing together widgets, maybe having down time makes you produce more than barely getting time to sleep.
Maybe some people who voluntarily work long hours do it because they love it, maybe they do it out of peer pressure, or maybe they do it since they are using hours to make up for a lack of smarts.
Some of us are lucky enough that what we love to do pays well also. But people who love to do stuff that doesn’t pay so well aren’t failures or mediocre. I bet that long term they are more successful than many who burn themselves out.
And some people want to make pottery, or write novels, or act, all activities that don’t usually make much money. It’s not some sort of character flaw to want to be creative, to have great experiences, or focus on your passion rather than gaining status symbols.
What is your measure of success? Is it just how many digits are in the number that represents your net financial worth?
I agree with you–lots and lots of paths to success. But you sound extremely scornful of those who want to chase financial success and net worth, as well. There’s a lot to be said for having a huge pile of money between yourself and poverty, to have enough money that you know you can take care of yourself and your loved ones against almost any reversal of fortune, etc. And there’s something to be said for being able to indulge yourself, as well, without fear that your risking your future.
I never needed to be rich, but it was super, super important to be to not be poor. The stress of knowing that almost any bad luck–a blown tire, an infected tooth, the slightest loss of income–would take all my creativity and energy to overcome was exhausting even for the few years I struggled like that. And I always has a good safety net in my family.
Again, not defending the rat race here, and really unsettled by growing income inequality that increasingly makes the choice rat race vs poverty, but people are allowed to want what they want.
[quote=“Broomstick, post:188, topic:938367, full:true”]
Not just how many digits, but yeah, a little bit.
I get it. People have things the actually enjoy. Like writing, acting, art, spending time with their family. And they are content to work a job that gives them time to do those things, even if it doesn’t pay very well.
Some people also enjoy programming computers, engineering, finding money by staring at candlestick charts, closing deals, etc.
The thing is, you still need to support yourself (and your family). If you aren’t making money with your writing, acting, or art then it’s a “hobby” (or at best a “side hustle” until it takes off).
Everyone here is focusing on the “status symbol” stuff, but you can’t work 80 to 100 hour weeks if you don’t have a passion and drive for the work.
IME, lots of people do, including basically every attorney I’ve ever known.
I once heard a saying about drugs: in the beginning it’s all pleasure with no pain. Soon, though, it becomes all pain with no pleasure.
Again: not to paint it with too broad a brush, but lots of people are stuck in jobs they really can’t stand, and are working draconian hours.
Which also makes it very hard to find an off-ramp (look for another job/career).
Just as employer-provided health care tends to tether us to a company, high earnings that cause/allow/spur you to bury yourself in extremely high fixed costs – until you get above X level of net worth and monthly net spendable – can be a bit of an albatross.
[quote=“msmith537, post:190, topic:938367, full:true”]
Nonsense. Ask any person trying to get out of poverty who is working 2 fulltime jobs how much passion they have cleaning or doing janitorial work or fast food or…
Sure you can - and I know plenty of people who do. In my case , most of the people I know working those hours are doing it because they get time and a half or double time for working the extra hours. I cannot think of one person I know with a salaried job who works 80-100 hours a week. ** They don’t love their work , they wouldn’t do it for free if they were independently wealthy and many of them think *** they want to retire as soon as possible.
** Not even the lawyers- but then again, when would I have the opportunity to get friendly with a lawyer that works 100 hour weeks?
*** I say “think” because plenty of them realize when the reach retirement age that they don’t really want to retire. They have no hobbies, no social life aside from work ( I know one who literally was upset that his pension and SS checks had to be direct deposited - because he would miss out on the social interaction of depositing the checks with a teller at the bank). They either have no family or have poor relationships because of all the time spent working and they don’t know what they will do with themselves in retirement.
Fair enough. I don’t know that a lot of my friends who work in banking, law, consulting, etc “love” their job.
I believe that no one has mentioned one big reason why highly educated people accept 100 hour a week jobs: FEAR. Under the skin, these people run on fear. This can have many causes.
Some people have lived through periods of extreme want. They will do anything to build up a reserve, even an excessive reserve, should hard times come again. There was a common phrase “depression era babies”. Those were the workers who would work any hours, overtime, weekends, and holidays, as long as it brought in money.
Some people see two choices, either work long hours at a powerful job or be “everyone else”. They CANNOT see the difference between someone who is “comfortable” and someone who as failed. And some people need to feel as though they are in the “chosen class”.
I believe that peer pressure was mentioned, but it deserves emphasis. Not “keeping up” with one’s peers can be devastating to some people.
Good reading on this topic: C.S. Lewis’ “The Inner Ring”.
That’s probably ONLY true in Silicon Valley. Even here in the Dallas area, which is one of the other major tech hubs in the country, $300k technology jobs are few and far between. Once you get outside of the large, R&D-focused Siilcon Valley/Bay Area companies, the vast majority of technology jobs aren’t in development of cool new stuff, but rather in corporate IT, support & maintenance, or consulting. Few of those top out as high as $300k, even if you end up being the CIO somewhere.
Also, the cost of living varies quite a bit elsewhere in the country. I’d bet your “not a mansion” is probably worth 500k or so in the Bay Area, while the same house here might cost 300k, and that’s in the absurdly hot and inflated housing market that we’re having right now.
It’s worth a million, which is not expensive for this area. But there are upsides to high housing prices: I’ve made about $750k over 30 years (absolute dollars, so obviously more w inflation) turning over the houses I’ve lived in when I wanted to move elsewhere in the area. And even with that kind of mortgage, I bank 20-30% of what I make for retirement, between 401k and investment contributions.
Many people would rather work 100 hrs a week for $100,000 per year, than 40 hours a week for $23,400. I know I would. And that doesn’t even factor in the paid vacation, bonuses and other perks of working such a job.
Plus, those jobs are probably intellectually stimulating, involve little to no manual labor, and offer a much better quality of life than the $450 per week job. On top of that, there is retirement. How’s that quality of life going to be when you’re 80, and you only earned $25,000 per year your entire life? You’ll probably have to work until you’re dead.
I don’t know how you managed to do it, @kitap, but it looks like you’ve got the tags switched on those quotes, attributing my words to @msmith537 and his words to me.
100hrs/week means something in the region of 14hr days 7 days a week. Not including commuting time. Or, treat yourself and go for 16+ hour days for 6 days a week. Best case is that you get to spend a couple of hours at home each day awake and functioning. and perhaps one day to luxuriate in all the fineries that such riches bring.
Yippee! That’s the life I want for $20/hr.
No, I think those scenarios are falling foul of the excluded middle.
If you have the capabilites to command a six figures then you have many more options open to you than just those stated above.
Sure it may mean a slightly smaller house or a slightly cheaper car or a cheaper watch/holiday/clothes etc. but I’d much rather have more modest possesions and have an abundance of leisure time with my family and I strongly suspect that many people would be happier if they realised that such a lifestyle was a realistic option and not a source of embarrasment.