Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

The Value of Work

Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2012 11:40:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Just a few random questions to satisfy my own curiosity. I'm curious to hear back from everyone of all demographics :) I don't think there is necessarily a right or wrong-- these are all just opinion questions. Ps. Too bad charleslb isn't here to answer some, lol. I'm curious what his answers might have been.

To what degree do you value wealth and why?

What role do you expect your career to play in your life: as a means to an end (to pay the bills, put food on the table, and make a little extra), or to pursue your dreams, passions and goals?

Do you think a college education is necessary/ helpful to your career, or would an apprenticeship program be favorable?

By treating certain jobs as if they were pathetic and only fit for a loser (eg. "You don't want to be working at McDonalds for the rest of your life, do you?"), those are the kind of attitudes and people you will attract to that industry. Then you complain why those idiots can never get your order right, spit in your fries, and otherwise act in accordance to the value that they've been assigned. While obviously supply and demand determines the value of some people's work to a large degree, obviously the human element of utility and value plays a role. Do you think society ought to reevaluate the way they view low-wage work now that most college grads are having an increasingly tough time gaining access to the corporate world for which they went to college for in the first place...? Why or why not?

Some people think it's wrong that we spend 1/3 + of our lives at work, plus time commuting to and from work, to pay for a house we barely spend time in, for children we barely get to see (because of work) etc. Considering both the fact that historically work has always been necessary/ paramount in people's lives, AND that in other countries they view work a lot differently (eg. more rigorously, or far more lax such as in Italy), do you think the way we ought to approach work or value it should be different?

>> What I mean is, suppose in China they emphasize work work work and are achieving economic success, while in Italy they are very lax about work but their economy is struggling, do you think the quality of life ought to be taken into consideration for a Chinese man vs. an Italian man? Who is happier? Who leads the "better" life? I'm philosophizing a little in the economics forum ;)
President of DDO
Koopin
Posts: 12,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2012 11:47:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I value wealth a lot. Money can buy happiness. I don't care about the nice cars a stuff, I just want to have enough wealthy to live comfortably and take care of my kids. Breaking the family curse of the men leaving their family or letting them starve.\

My passion is chickens, and I would love to just have my own small farm. However, that makes almost no money. I am still going to school for Poultry Science and plan on working for the USDA or something to do with poultry. There is a big market for it.

Chickens have and will change my life. Now if I had to take out a loan I would not go, instead I'd intern somewhere. But I have the Hope scholarship and some things already granted to me.
kfc
Koopin
Posts: 12,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2012 11:56:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
To answer the original question, I think that both the Chinese man and the Italian man are going to have almost the same outcome. Working to much will drive a family apart, but so will not being able to provide for one.

Then again, I hear Italians are really close.
kfc
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2012 12:08:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I value wealth to the degree that enables me to live a life where money is of little or no concern. My family in Bosnia is often in need of financial aid, and mass wealth would only be very appealing to me in order to help them out of poverty so they can live a normal life. Big cars and houses are of no concern to me.

It's a good question concerning the happiness rating of a country. It's a fact that the most economically stable and prosperous countries rank on top of the charts. It has to do with the power of money; You can buy medicine to better your health, afford a psychologist, be extravagant with material goods without diminishing returns, ad infinitum.
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2012 12:15:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Human wealth is nice.

At first, I didn't understand it, but then, it all made sense. See, wealth, to me, was having a lot of stuff. Access to my pleasures. There's liquor, if I want it. There's p*ssy, if I want it. There's grass or opium or molly or shrooms, and they're everywhere. Along with chicken.

And steak. Of all preparations.

And Mexican food. And Indian food. And Thai food. And Vietnamese food.

Stuff.

But, then, I realized that all of these things are achievable without money. I mean, get yourself a scholarship and go to college, and you get all that and more, if you're clever enough to find it.

But, wealth. What is that?

Ah, I had to re-conceptualize money. I mean, here I was thinking it's how I get stuff, and then, I see that I can get stuff without it. I just have to give up other things, like wit or comfort. You see, money is exclusively human, but there's stuff everywhere that everyone wants. So, why do only humans use money?

Because, it's incentive, and humans are narcissists. Well, that's the closest English term to what they are. And well, not without cause. They have these opposable thumbs and highly sensitive furless skin, rather prominent genitalia and a life riddled with hormonal imbalance. Oh, and you clever imps, humans know pleasure. God, is pleasure not what humans are all about. I mean, chicken, blood, adrenaline, orgasms, sure, that was already here. But, you refined wine into whiskey; blood into syrup; orgasms into divine retribution. You humans, each and every one of you, are capable of producing pleasure, and of all sorts of degrees. And, everyone wants it, oh, they wake up and sleep and dream lusting for these pleasures.

I mean, such unique lips, such prehensile, unique lips...

So soft...

I mean, everything out there in the open, exaggerated, udders like heifers, scrotums like bulls.

So, what, or who, determines who gives this pleasure, and who gets it?

Well, money, of course. Get as much as you can -- it is the standard incentive of humanity. And, with enough of it, you can get anyone to do anything for you.

It is a nice compliment to existence, if you can figure out how to get it before you die.
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2012 12:40:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Well, that's how I feel about wealth. But, my feelings about work are entirely separate.

See, everything is better with cooperation. Whether it's efficiency, productivity, stability, or refinement, it's best engaged through cooperation.

Well, humans don't like cooperating. Unless we're talking about a passion, of course. But, in the natural state, humans are looking out for themselves, with little regard for larger enterprises, no matter how dependent on these enterprises they are. So, there's these societies, these self-sustaining and globally interactive organizations, they require cooperation. People don't want to cooperate, so instead of explaining it to them and expecting them to make rational, mature decisions about their lives in the interest of the larger goal (maintaining a given colony/society), they lie to them and tell them that they can get anything they want if they cooperate.

Then, of course, to maintain that goal, you have the paper incentive. Free tickets to whatever the next man can offer. Oh, you do backrubs? Here's some green paper. Oh, you make clothing? Here's some green paper. Oh, you give handjobs? Here's some green paper. It makes it all perceptively worthwhile.

I mean, we could all just do without and it do what we want every day, but what would distinguish who gives and who gets? That is, of course, unless everyone were to agree to cooperate. ;)
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2012 5:50:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/28/2012 11:40:17 AM, Danielle wrote:
Just a few random questions to satisfy my own curiosity. I'm curious to hear back from everyone of all demographics :) I don't think there is necessarily a right or wrong-- these are all just opinion questions. Ps. Too bad charleslb isn't here to answer some, lol. I'm curious what his answers might have been.

To what degree do you value wealth and why?

Highly. Wealth can replace work in regards to earning a living. Wealth is the key to financial freedom...without it, you are mired in wage slavery.

What role do you expect your career to play in your life: as a means to an end (to pay the bills, put food on the table, and make a little extra), or to pursue your dreams, passions and goals?

Hopefully both. I love to travel, and will hopefully enter a career that will involve a lot of it.

Do you think a college education is necessary/ helpful to your career, or would an apprenticeship program be favorable?

Good question. I think the US can benefit greatly by adding in a semester or year of fully vocational-oriented education in order to train some minimal and applicable job skills. The idea would be that people have a choice as to which vocation they'd receive training.

By treating certain jobs as if they were pathetic and only fit for a loser (eg. "You don't want to be working at McDonalds for the rest of your life, do you?"), those are the kind of attitudes and people you will attract to that industry. Then you complain why those idiots can never get your order right, spit in your fries, and otherwise act in accordance to the value that they've been assigned. While obviously supply and demand determines the value of some people's work to a large degree, obviously the human element of utility and value plays a role. Do you think society ought to reevaluate the way they view low-wage work now that most college grads are having an increasingly tough time gaining access to the corporate world for which they went to college for in the first place...? Why or why not?

Really good point. A college education, especially a liberal arts education, no longer prepares people for today's jobs. In that low-wage jobs don't require any skills, sure, such opportunities are always available. I think the key would be to introduce an element of skill to whatever currently comprises "low wage jobs" and then to actively train this skill in schools. I think the best way the government could encourage this is by raising the minimum wage, and by providing funding for setting up vocational training. It may exacerbate job loss at the unskilled level, but it would prepare America for a better future.

Some people think it's wrong that we spend 1/3 + of our lives at work, plus time commuting to and from work, to pay for a house we barely spend time in, for children we barely get to see (because of work) etc. Considering both the fact that historically work has always been necessary/ paramount in people's lives, AND that in other countries they view work a lot differently (eg. more rigorously, or far more lax such as in Italy), do you think the way we ought to approach work or value it should be different?

Hard to say. Some people spend well over 1/3 of their lives at work and love it. Some people don't want to see their families (sob!). We wouldn't see our kids anyway, since they spend 35+ hours a week at school, so this is irrelevant. I think with a 40 hour work week, people have enough time to spread around.

>> What I mean is, suppose in China they emphasize work work work and are achieving economic success, while in Italy they are very lax about work but their economy is struggling, do you think the quality of life ought to be taken into consideration for a Chinese man vs. an Italian man? Who is happier? Who leads the "better" life? I'm philosophizing a little in the economics forum ;)

Hmm. Lots of ways to approach this one. Maybe the first derivative is more important here? I.e., you work hard, but guess what? You're making more and more forward progress, it's tangible, hell, I love this. Not only is your lot improving, but the rate of improvement itself is also improving. This is how Wall Street operates...they only look at rates (i.e. yield).

Interesting discussion, thanks.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 2:45:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This is such a multifaceted, deep question, and I think enough time has passed so that I can answer more of it without being obnoxious.

So, I already approached wealth and work. Your next question was about the role of a career.

As far as a career is concerned, the whole point, the whole reasoning behind the concept, is maintain a personal lifestyle in a way that benefits others, with the incentive of access to currency for peripheral needs or desires. It's a way to help make what we are and who we are coincide.

This, obviously, doesn't apply to everyone. It, instead, applies to those who have a what in addition to a who. In other words, take the random domesticated casual family canine. What is his purpose in life? Why, his next whim. Whatever occurs to him is literally what rules his entire universe, and everything he does in it. What he is extends as far as the fact that he's a dog, so his only concern is to be a dog.

On the other hand, a pack wolf is not just a pack wolf. He has responsibilities. He has premeditated purpose to each action, and every action coincides in pursuit of a larger goal. It also coincides with his particular niche. Is he the alpha or the general or a worker or a forager or a scout, or what is he? What is he?

Well, humans have money. Most primates don't, but that's because most primates don't have quite as much to offer one another at quite as much a diversity. But, the human construction is rife with the Seven Deadlies, which means they know how to give, and they know how to get. So, whatever humans end up being, whether it's a plumber or a contractor or a lawyer or a micro engineer, it's because they found a way to get paid for what they do by applying it to a given craft, and calling it a career. However, that's if the human is any more than human...

Because, see, this is as opposed to a job, which is something to do to get paid. Those who aren't much of anything aside general categorizations (like being human, or tall, or tan) can simply get a job and do something that will generate income. To be honest, the proportion of people who are like this and those who find ways to get paid for doing what are already inclined to do waxes and wanes. Sometimes, most people are simply looking for a way to get by, while others, people are looking to get by on what they already do. So, to say people are more one or the other is ultimately fallacious.

In any case, I don't think either engagement is any nobler.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2012 10:22:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
To what degree do you value wealth and why?

Wealth is absolutely value-less. Provided one has a certain minimum ability to survive (i.e., food, shelter, community), adding wealth does not increase happiness. Chasing wealth is inevitably going to lead to less happiness, simply because one is putting efforts into making money instead of other things in life that actually are related to happiness. Things like spending time with family and friends, improving ones personal skills (as opposed to marketable skills), and creating a stress-free lifestyle that doesn't include punching a clock and producing widgets.

What role do you expect your career to play in your life?

My career is the most potentially harmful aspect of my life, because there is always the possibility that I will change my life to suit it instead of the other way around. Putting lots of resources (i.e., time) into it will mean that my family suffers. My health will suffer (no time for exercise, relaxation). Stress will become a bigger element as I take on more responsibilities in order to achieve the privilege of more money, however, I cannot turn around and use that money to relieve stress. I can use it to indulge myself (nicer car, bigger house, etc.) but these activities cannot undo all the damage that comes with producing and consuming large amounts of wealth. I will also decrease my tolerance/fortitude to resist indulgence by spending money more freely, and will require more and more indulgence to maintain my baseline happiness.

Do you think a college education is necessary/ helpful to your career, or would an apprenticeship program be favorable?

College is increasingly becoming simply a notch on the belt to prove yourself, while your experience is the real thing employers are looking for. People are not in school to learn anymore, they just want to get through it so they can make more money. Colleges are turning more and more into private training facilities as opposed to institutions of "higher learning."

Do you think society ought to reevaluate the way they view low-wage work now that most college grads are having an increasingly tough time gaining access to the corporate world for which they went to college for in the first place...? Why or why not?

All work should be low-wage. When wages are increased, our purchasing "power" creates menial labor, as well as everything else that's bad about the economy (i.e., environmental and social damage).

do you think the way we ought to approach work or value it should be different?

Yes. Work should be seen as a way to supplement our lives, not overcome our lives. Work has amazing health benefits that no doctor and no dollar can recreate - we need work for a host of psychological reasons. We should be concentrating on improving the work environment, not trying to create more competitive situations that dictate the need for more strictly regulated work environments in order to increase "performance." We don't realize that the fruits of our labor go beyond widgets and profits - it is our dignity, our strength, and, as you pointed out with time, it is how we spend most of our lives. Our work environment is steadily degrading; more rules, more regulations, and more competitive techniques at increasing production at the expense of worker's dignity.

do you think the quality of life ought to be taken into consideration for a Chinese man vs. an Italian man? Who is happier? Who leads the "better" life?

Well first off we are assuming that a country is going to experience hard times just because everyone isn't sitting in a factory all day long producing widgets. What about consumption? What about quality as opposed to quantity? What about things that are "productive" in a sense that isn't economic?
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2012 1:03:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/29/2012 2:45:57 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
As far as a career is concerned, the whole point, the whole reasoning behind the concept, is maintain a personal lifestyle in a way that benefits others, with the incentive of access to currency for peripheral needs or desires. It's a way to help make what we are and who we are coincide.

But even in the rare case that obedience to desire, and thus ultimately need, satisfies, it comes primarily at the cost of another's dissatisfaction.

When a commodity is bought, perhaps it makes the buyer happy; perhaps such pleasure is even adequate compensation for the sacrifices made in acquiring the funds; that isn't evidently the case, but there's no theoretical flaw in it. However, it pleases the buyer primarily (though not necessarily consciously) because it either signals wealth and thus serves them in competition for mates, that zero-sum game, or somehow fuels the reproduction of competitors. That follows from the individual nature of genetic replication.

As production, thus work, is determined by such consumption, it's therefore fallacious to assume that it's primarily beneficial to others. That doesn't mean markets are hopeless, just that they're no friend to humanity when they fail to account for such externalities in the form of excise taxes.
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2012 11:57:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/30/2012 1:03:20 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
At 12/29/2012 2:45:57 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
As far as a career is concerned, the whole point, the whole reasoning behind the concept, is maintain a personal lifestyle in a way that benefits others, with the incentive of access to currency for peripheral needs or desires. It's a way to help make what we are and who we are coincide.

But even in the rare case that obedience to desire, and thus ultimately need, satisfies, it comes primarily at the cost of another's dissatisfaction.

When a commodity is bought, perhaps it makes the buyer happy; perhaps such pleasure is even adequate compensation for the sacrifices made in acquiring the funds; that isn't evidently the case, but there's no theoretical flaw in it. However, it pleases the buyer primarily (though not necessarily consciously) because it either signals wealth and thus serves them in competition for mates, that zero-sum game, or somehow fuels the reproduction of competitors. That follows from the individual nature of genetic replication.

As production, thus work, is determined by such consumption, it's therefore fallacious to assume that it's primarily beneficial to others. That doesn't mean markets are hopeless, just that they're no friend to humanity when they fail to account for such externalities in the form of excise taxes.

Ah, I do see your point. The purpose of generating money, and thus, to cooperate, is not in the interest of others, but in the interest of one's self.

But, that was actually what I was saying. Money incentivizes work, which determines how benefits from participation are allocated.

The fact is, though, that participation overall wouldn't occur if it weren't beneficial for the parties involved. That is, of course, unless you take ignorance which leads a man to believe that there is nothing separate of the human paradigm into account. However, I wouldn't. I consider such people irrelevant.
tmar19652
Posts: 727
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2012 1:19:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I can't speak for many of the topics, as I am still relatively young and unwise, but a college degree got my "foot In the door" at IBM. My education comes up every once in a while, but after getting hired, 60-80 hour weeks through throughout my late 20's put me where I am today.

Also, I worked hard then so that now I can telecommute 3 days a week and work 40 hours a week max, and spend time with my kids. So I now appreciate the sacrifices I made during those years, and I wouldn't have it any other way.

Finally, I do value wealth a lot. My grandparents were Irish immigrants and they worked their butts off to put my parents and I where we are today. I feel that if I am not working hard, that I am doing a disservice to them, and I want to be able to send my kids to good schools with a trust fund for them when they get older. So wealth is not the end all-be all for me. But it has brought my family happiness, so it can't be (no pun intended) devalued .
"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan

"The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain ex<x>pressions even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship." -George H.W. Bush
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2012 1:39:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/31/2012 11:57:49 AM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
The fact is, though, that participation overall wouldn't occur if it weren't beneficial for the parties involved. That is, of course, unless you take ignorance which leads a man to believe that there is nothing separate of the human paradigm into account. However, I wouldn't. I consider such people irrelevant.

But such "irrelevant" folk not only have money, but over time become wealthier than others, so they must be taken into account.

Also, you apparently narrowed my point to animal abuse when I wasn't even talking about that. Humans are a normal sexual species in that their primary competitors are others of the same species and the same sex.

Added to which, since almost the beginning of biological time, the vast majority of resources have been spent on competition, and things like pleasure and happiness are mere mechanisms for the aquisition and proper utilization of such resources. They are normally, not exceptionally, accompanied by another's experience of pain or sadness.

So you hit the nail on the head with "parties involved". The buyer's competitors are not involved in the sale, though their collective (negative) interest is of comparable magnitude. That's capitalism, the aptly-named "Social Darwinism", a reproduction of the pointless natural struggle.

Work will become useful when we recognize ourselves and each other as isolated prisoners to want--as contestants in a true prisoner's dilemma--and choose to cooperate, not in little alliances like those between buyers and sellers, but in the only coalition capable of liberation.
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2012 1:47:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/31/2012 1:19:36 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
Finally, I do value wealth a lot. My grandparents were Irish immigrants and they worked their butts off to put my parents and I where we are today. I feel that if I am not working hard, that I am doing a disservice to them, and I want to be able to send my kids to good schools with a trust fund for them when they get older. So wealth is not the end all-be all for me. But it has brought my family happiness, so it can't be (no pun intended) devalued .

Perfect example. It has value because it brought my family happiness. And how did it do so? Circularly, by establishing another generation of workers, this one perhaps more productive.
tmar19652
Posts: 727
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2012 2:12:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/31/2012 1:47:25 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
At 12/31/2012 1:19:36 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
Finally, I do value wealth a lot. My grandparents were Irish immigrants and they worked their butts off to put my parents and I where we are today. I feel that if I am not working hard, that I am doing a disservice to them, and I want to be able to send my kids to good schools with a trust fund for them when they get older. So wealth is not the end all-be all for me. But it has brought my family happiness, so it can't be (no pun intended) devalued .

Perfect example. It has value because it brought my family happiness. And how did it do so? Circularly, by establishing another generation of workers, this one perhaps more productive.

Exactly what I meant but could not articulate!
"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan

"The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain ex<x>pressions even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship." -George H.W. Bush
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2013 3:23:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The economy was made for man, not man for the economy.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2013 4:10:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Being able to relax, and not stress. Feeling like you belong.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
slo1
Posts: 4,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2013 1:46:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
What a mixed bag of junk.

- As I get older I see how the pursuit of wealth is really a pursuit of something else. It is either:
1. Pursuit of freedom. (having to be beholden to someone or something else)
2. Pursuit of security (having enough to have food, shelter, decent life)
3. Pursuit of internal attributes. (This is intrinsic things such as the boss who thrives on power over others or someone who likes the office for the sense of community, etc.)

- Despite of what everyone tells you the correlation of work to wealth has not much to do with how hard you work. It can be a factor, but there are much more important factors.

- Once one learns what one is really chasing via 1,2 or 3 above, you come to realize that 1, 2, or 3 really don't exist. Maybe for some people some of the time, but never for all the people for all the time. Even those who try so hard can have them wiped out in a flash.

- It is at that point, one realizes that your best bet to achieve 1,2 or 3 is to just do what makes you happy. If you want to be a real estate agent be one and if you really like it you will do just fine. If you end up hating it, you have to move on.

- Lastly, those who had the courage and didn't spend like drunken sailors have the ability to move on. Once you get in debt, care too much what you family expectations are upon you, etc then you get stuck being in something you find you don't want to do. You won't find wealth, security, freedom, etc in that situation.

- At the heart of the matter, the value is not any old work, the value is doing work that you value.
OllerupMand
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2013 5:42:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/28/2012 11:40:17 AM, Danielle wrote:
Just a few random questions to satisfy my own curiosity. I'm curious to hear back from everyone of all demographics :) I don't think there is necessarily a right or wrong-- these are all just opinion questions. Ps. Too bad charleslb isn't here to answer some, lol. I'm curious what his answers might have been.

To what degree do you value wealth and why?
Very low. Money come and go. Social security means that I don't really worry about wealth.
What role do you expect your career to play in your life: as a means to an end (to pay the bills, put food on the table, and make a little extra), or to pursue your dreams, passions and goals?
My work is my passion.
Do you think a college education is necessary/ helpful to your career, or would an apprenticeship program be favorable?
An education is necessary, but it should be combined with an apprenticeship program.
By treating certain jobs as if they were pathetic and only fit for a loser (eg. "You don't want to be working at McDonalds for the rest of your life, do you?"), those are the kind of attitudes and people you will attract to that industry. Then you complain why those idiots can never get your order right, spit in your fries, and otherwise act in accordance to the value that they've been assigned. While obviously supply and demand determines the value of some people's work to a large degree, obviously the human element of utility and value plays a role. Do you think society ought to reevaluate the way they view low-wage work now that most college grads are having an increasingly tough time gaining access to the corporate world for which they went to college for in the first place...? Why or why not?
I come from a country where we don't look down on low-waged work. I don't think we have work with really low wages though. Anyway I don't get why some work should be more or less pathetic than others.
Some people think it's wrong that we spend 1/3 + of our lives at work, plus time commuting to and from work, to pay for a house we barely spend time in, for children we barely get to see (because of work) etc. Considering both the fact that historically work has always been necessary/ paramount in people's lives, AND that in other countries they view work a lot differently (eg. more rigorously, or far more lax such as in Italy), do you think the way we ought to approach work or value it should be different?

>> What I mean is, suppose in China they emphasize work work work and are achieving economic success, while in Italy they are very lax about work but their economy is struggling, do you think the quality of life ought to be taken into consideration for a Chinese man vs. an Italian man? Who is happier? Who leads the "better" life? I'm philosophizing a little in the economics forum ;)
Am I totally crazy when I say that you want to find a balance betwen work and family? You can easly work 8 hours a day and still put your family first. A human who works all the time is not happy, but neither is a human that never works. Also it is not always about how long time you spend with your family as how well you do it.
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2013 4:32:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Work is of no value to someone who does not want to work. Work is of no value to the entitlement minded but only punishment. Work is of no value to those who think they should be paid more than they are really worth. Work is of no value to gangs. Work is of no value to drug dealers, Work is of no value to half the nation.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2013 5:56:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/8/2013 4:32:10 PM, sadolite wrote:
Work is of no value to someone who does not want to work. Work is of no value to the entitlement minded but only punishment. Work is of no value to those who think they should be paid more than they are really worth. Work is of no value to gangs. Work is of no value to drug dealers, Work is of no value to half the nation.

If you say so.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2013 4:06:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I value wealth, because wealth provides a sense of financial security. While wealth cannot buy happiness, it can buy security and peace of mind. Wealth can also buy luxuries, but the more luxuries you buy the less security you have.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle