[nep321]

Originally Posted by mlassoff

My SO and I both have our own careers. Everybody is different. He works for the UN and sometimes travels 6 to 8 weeks at a time. It works for us-- Might not work for you.

My only point is that you can work in a field you love if that's what you choose.

If you hate your job-- Change something.

I don't think it's that simple though. Changing jobs typically means taking a pay cut. So let's say I change careers and take a pay cut from $75K down to $50K and it's a much more exciting and fulfilling career. That's great. But at $50K, I would have to drastically change my living standards to the point that I would be extremely unhappy with my living arrangements. I probably would be forced to get roommates or live in the ghetto or something like that. To me, that's not worth it. Currently, my career is just okay. I don't love it or hate it. But I can't complain about the income and benefits I receive. So it's kind of an equilibrium. And there's no guarantee that "the money will come," if someone switches careers and takes a huge pay cut. Yes, for many people it has worked. But let's be realistic. Most musicians and artists absolutely love and are often good at what they do, but sadly, most of them struggle to make a decent living.

In summary, I would rather do something that I'm just okay with doing, if it means it will reward me with a higher standard of living.

To each his own, of course.

[Lincolnian]

Many people are more concerned about the benefits they will lose aside from salary factors. Healthcare is a huge concern. The recent passage of the Affordable Healthcare Act does not solve that problem for most people, especially those with health problems. The cost of that program can be significantly higher, in some cases 20% of income, with less coverage than what they are offered in their current position. If a person has a child or spouse with significant health issues it would not be responsible to leave a corporate job and follow their passion without the ability to provide the healthcare coverage their family depends upon. Vacation time and other paid time off is another concern as well as many people use that time to attend to family needs and business that needs to get done.

[7 Wishes]

Originally Posted by Lincolnian

Many people are more concerned about the benefits they will lose aside from salary factors. Healthcare is a huge concern. The recent passage of the Affordable Healthcare Act does not solve that problem for most people, especially those with health problems. The cost of that program can be significantly higher, in some cases 20% of income, with less coverage than what they are offered in their current position. If a person has a child or spouse with significant health issues it would not be responsible to leave a corporate job and follow their passion without the ability to provide the healthcare coverage their family depends upon. Vacation time and other paid time off is another concern as well as many people use that time to attend to family needs and business that needs to get done.

Actually it does solve it for most people, the problem is that instead of doing that while keeping the benefits for those who don't need it or whose incomes are too high for the subsidies it seems to lessen it for them in a bit of a "zero sum game". If anything, the exchanges have freed many to leave corporate jobs as they didn't necessary need them to get affordable health insurance. And many people with health problems who were completely denied insurance now have some.

To simply say that it did not solve that problem for MOST people is a conservative lie designed to kill it and go back to an even worse pre-Obamacare status quo for most rather than look at it from the eye of how do we improve it so everyone benefits. Consequently, to say that no one at all is negatively affected by it is a liberal lie designed to protect the many who have benefitted. Neither is correct but it seems I more often hear the bigger lie that everyone lost and no one benefitted.

I guess it's time to get the popcorn out and see the beginning of this thread getting closed.....

[EricS39]

People should work to live and live to work

Work is a necessity and giving your full time for money is the only way you can create something from nothing

[trishguard]

Originally Posted by mlassoff

Of course. However, if you choose something you love, I think, you are a lot less worried about how many hours you work...

Not if you have a spouse you wish to maintain a relationship with, or children who want to spend some time with you and get to know you.

[Lincolnian]

Originally Posted by 7 Wishes

Actually it does solve it for most people, the problem is that instead of doing that while keeping the benefits for those who don't need it or whose incomes are too high for the subsidies it seems to lessen it for them in a bit of a "zero sum game". If anything, the exchanges have freed many to leave corporate jobs as they didn't necessary need them to get affordable health insurance. And many people with health problems who were completely denied insurance now have some.

To simply say that it did not solve that problem for MOST people is a conservative lie designed to kill it and go back to an even worse pre-Obamacare status quo for most rather than look at it from the eye of how do we improve it so everyone benefits. Consequently, to say that no one at all is negatively affected by it is a liberal lie designed to protect the many who have benefitted. Neither is correct but it seems I more often hear the bigger lie that everyone lost and no one benefitted.

I guess it's time to get the popcorn out and see the beginning of this thread getting closed.....

We are talking about CT corporate slaves. In CT if you have a family income of roughly $100,000 the silver plan with the deductible before the benefits kick in is approximately $18,000 according to the CT website. That would cover a lot of families working in the corporate world here in CT. There are no subsidies at that income level and it equates to approximately 20% of gross income. Many employers and larger corporations are cutting back on their plans but they still are much more affordable in most cases. I'm not saying to go back to pre-Obamacare status but the cost needs to be more realistic as 20% along with all the other costs of living just isn't doable for most people and it is foreseeable that many employers will use this as an opportunity to get the cost off of their balance sheet and onto that of their employee over the next few years. That coupled with wage stagnation has the potential to result in a lower realized standard of living for the average corporate worker. I'd personally like to see it fixed and provide a Medicare-like coverage for all with corporations and private insurers offering supplemental options.

[gmdealerguy]

Originally Posted by EricS39

People should work to live and live to work

What??

[gmdealerguy]

Originally Posted by trishguard

Not if you have a spouse you wish to maintain a relationship with, or children who want to spend some time with you and get to know you.

Yep.....

[Rakin]

Originally Posted by wma152

Most of all, sick and tire of constantly spending energy and effort learning new crap. It's like going to school all over again with no graduation date.

All Professions are mostly this way.... Real Estate, Law, Accounting, Engineering, Auto Mechanics, ect.

You either stay current or you get replaced as obsolete.

[Tetto]

Originally Posted by trishguard

Not if you have a spouse you wish to maintain a relationship with, or children who want to spend some time with you and get to know you.

Yes, I know quite a few colleagues who have destroyed their marriages/relationships due to their love of the job. They become enamored with being in the know, the travel, the money. I make a great living, but I will not sacrifice my marriage for anything.