All Big Issues
The Instigator
Pro (for)
Losing
11 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
Winning
40 Points

# It is better to find a fulfilling job that a job that pays well

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0

Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 12 votes the winner is...
J.Kenyon
 Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point Started: 10/10/2010 Category: Miscellaneous Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period Viewed: 9,040 times Debate No: 13340
Debate Rounds (2)

 Pro Finding a fulfilling job is better because u will have to work on the same profession for about 4o something years so it is best to find something that you enjoy instead of finding some boring job that pays well. Of course, the best would be an interest that pays well. However, enjoying life is more important than being richReport this Argument Con Thanks, Pro, for initiating this debate challenge. As Pro and Instigator, my opponent bears the burden of proof. He must therefore affirm that in all cases (or at the very least in a *majority* of cases), it is better to have a more fulfilling job rather than a higher paying job. This seems to be a nearly impossible task since it is purely a matter of personal opinion. Let's make this into an equation where H equals total happiness, J is the fulfillment one gets out of his job, and M is the amount of money he makes. By combining the amount of job satisfaction with the value one places on it, we can construct a function f(J) that allows us to assign it a happiness value. Similarly, by combining one's earnings with the value one places on money, we can assign a happiness value to f(M). So, our equation should look like this: H = f(J) + f(M) It's a rather straightforward matter then. All other things being equal, an individual who derives more happiness from wealth than career fulfillment will be much better off taking the higher paying job. If one assigns equal weight to both career fulfillment and wealth, the monetary benefits (M) of the higher paying job need only to slightly exceed the greater satisfaction (J) of the more fulfilling job to make it preferable. Obviously, if the M value of the higher paying job is significantly greater than the M value of the lower paying job, it would be in the person's best interest to take the higher paying job unless he assigns an absurdly high value to career satisfaction. Outside the clear cut cases, there are many factors that go into determining which job will bring about the highest H value. People have many conflicting desires wholly apart from their careers that affect the weight they assign to the J and M values. Someone may want to retire early, or be able to support a large family. He may want to be able to send his kids to a prestigious university, or buy an expensive sports car. All of these things contribute to greater weight being assigned to the M value. == Conclusion == Pro has his work cut out for him. I have demonstrated how and why one might choose a remunerative career path over a more fulfilling and given several examples. Pro has his work cut out for him: he must prove that it is always better (in terms of H value) to choose the fulfilling job. Even under a more liberal interpretation of the resolution, it would still be nearly impossible to demonstrate that fulfilling jobs are more conducive to happiness than high paying jobs in simple majority of cases. The resolution is negated.Report this Argument Pro Thanks for accepting this challenge. I kind of see what you mean... However, we can look at Jane Goodall. As we all know, Jane Goodall studies primates but primarily chimpanzees. So, she can be counted as a scientist. Scientists generally don't earn very much unless they discover something or are famous. If you say that well paying jobs are more preferred, then why would we even have artists, professional orchestra players, etc. You might say that these people don't need a very high level of education. Sure, they might not be passing in math at school, but they are excelling in other subjects. Anyways, Jane Goodall chose to follow her interests and become a scientist. She has chosen to enjoy her work for the next couple of decades instead of reaping in money from a hateful job but losing hair from having to go to work. Because of her determination and devotion, she has managed to soar to the top and become famous because of what she did. Like I said, if everyone was interested in high paying jobs, what would become of our music, arts, and literature. Our artists, musicians, and authors would all disappear. Lastly, I'm suppose to prove that fulfilling jobs are always better than well paying jobs. Hmmm... Well, working for a profession that one dislikes is proven to cause stress, be damaging to one's self-esteem. "The experience is worth more than the wage."-Garmin. It is impossible to say that a statement can cover all cases. Even the constitution couldn't do that. In conclusion, choosing a more fulfilling job challenges you and makes life all the more exciting. Thanks for debating, learned a lot. (I'm a girl.)Report this Argument Con I agree that there is no price you can put on a dream, however, people like Jane Goodall represent a tiny fraction of all cases. For many people, their job is merely a means to an end. Financial security is necessary to achieve their other, more important goals. I again agree that the world would be a dull and bleak place without the artists and musicians who make tremendous sacrifices to pursue their dreams. However, they are referred to as starving artists for a reason. People who become famous and wealthy for their achievements are incredibly rare. The vast majority of musicians end up working part time jobs and playing a few gigs at local clubs on the side. The lucky ones who find regular employment still make barely enough to get by. It's simply not practical for most people. Those with goals like those I listed earlier (wanting to raise a family, retire early, etc.) can't achieve this working as a field researcher, or an artist, or a musician. Working a job that you hate may cause stress and make you unhappy, but that's not necessary in many cases. Take teaching at a private parochial school, for example. Many teachers find it more fulfilling, but the higher pay offered draws many to work at public schools instead. In cases like this, an individual trades a marginal amount of job satisfaction for what they consider to be a large enough increase in wages. == Conclusion == Pro has failed to fulfill her burden of proof. There are many instances where a high paying job is preferable to more fulfilling job. People who place a higher value on their non career-related goals have a good reason to choose the high paying, less fulfilling job, as do people who need sacrifice only a marginal amount of career fulfillment for a greater increase in pay. The resolution is negated. Vote Con.Report this Argument
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by bluesteel 6 years ago
"The problem Iund with judging this debate is that it was never clear what was meant by the resolution"

"In all cases . . . it is better to have a more fulfilling job rather than a higher paying job"

In my opinion, when resolutional analysis is offered by one side, and is left unrefuted by the other, that resolutional interpretation is accepted.

I am compelled by con's analysis that room must be left open for people whose personal valuation of family life (and by extension money) outweigh their personal valuation of job satisfaction.
Posted by nonentity 6 years ago
Ohh I totally missed that. I see.
Posted by J.Kenyon 6 years ago
"lol @ Pro's random "I'm a girl" statement."

Probably had something to do with me referring to her as "he" in the first round. ;)
Posted by nonentity 6 years ago
lol @ Pro's random "I'm a girl" statement. I gave arguments to Con because, in my opinion, Pro didn't convince me that finding a fulfilling job was necessarily better, just that it was a good thing to do.
Posted by TheAtheistAllegiance 7 years ago
Roy's RFD was a slam dunk. Not much more to say...
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
The problem Iund with judging this debate is that it was never clear what was meant by the resolution. It's true that not having enough money to buy food or have a roof over your head is likely to lead to a less happy life than one with a almost any job that provides the basics. From the context of Pro's opening statement, I think the resolution assumed that the debate was about people who are choosing between jobs making more or less money, but in both cases will meet their needs. Pro should have made that assumption explicit, as it was reasonable for Con to attack the resolution using a different interpretation.

In Con's notation f(M) rises quickly then flattens out. A recent study in the US claimed that if a person makes at least \$70K a year, then increased earnings do not produce increased happiness. Past studies have put the threshold of happiness-from-money even lower. It is not true that the megarich are generally happier than guys who own tire shops, or whatever. (This is important to understand in discussions on redistribution of wealth.) I think Pro had the right intuition on this subject and expressed it well enough to win arguments.

Pro's spelling and grammar were poor. Using the "Check your spelling" option wold have helped.
Posted by Loserboi 7 years ago
"enjoying life is more important than being rich" I am pretty sure rich people enjoy life.
Posted by J.Kenyon 7 years ago
Make it three rounds and I'll take it.
Posted by grandma-john 7 years ago
fulfilling job is usually better than a job that pays well
Posted by BlackVoid 7 years ago
I would like to know that as well.

I may take this, but I first want to know whether or not this resolution is universal. Are we arguing that a fulfilling/well paying job is always better than the other?
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.