Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Most of the "show off" people are in professionals like real estate or sales. They likely spend all the money they make.
For many Wall St. types money is certainly a way to keep score. You need investment accounts to do that - with lots of money. If you spend it all you don't have money in investment accounts.
There are certainly some of those types who spend it all, but a lot of them are socking away a ton of money and investing and making more money...that is ultimately how you measure success...by the size of your brokerage accounts.
There is certainly an attraction to people who have money - it will enhance how much someone is legitimately attracted to you - but there will of course need to be some spark that's not related to money nonetheless.
For many Wall St. types money is certainly a way to keep score. You need investment accounts to do that - with lots of money. If you spend it all you don't have money in investment accounts.
If people on wall-street were just managing their own money wall-street would be a much different place.
If people on wall-street were just managing their own money wall-street would be a much different place.
Well what I mean is those employees of Goldman, etc. are managing their own money - I mean personal accounts from the 7 figure bonuses, etc. Of course they are managing other people's money too. But when I refer to them "keeping score," it is primarily with their personal accounts, not their jobs. I think the theory is the "better" they are at their jobs, the higher their personal score. Although I think we all know how that turns out in reality.
Investment banking is a total sales job now. If you are good at it, then you will make quality money but if you suck, you will be fired. I thought about doing this but you will probably start at a bank on the front lines cold calling people to get experience.
But when I refer to them "keeping score," it is primarily with their personal accounts, not their jobs.
These people will certainly brag about big gains in the markets, etc, but ultimately like everyone else they will spend a good deal of their money on status symbols. Manhattan would be pretty empty if they didn't.
"Enjoyable job" is somewhat of a misnomer concept. It seems to be based upon the unchallenged acceptance that you spend most of your breathing moments at work, instead of at home or with your family. That's a very American-narrow view of the world, first of all. If we didn't spend 75% of our waking moments at work then finding value in pursuing work that entertains you wouldn't be so important. After a certain threshold, a merely "tolerable" job becomes sufficient. I don't care how much you love what you do, when the paycheck at the end of the month leaves you struggling or merely not attaining the lifestyle or material affluence you deem desirable for your daily troubles, you'll grow tired and resentful of that job you "love".
Secondly, Maslow trumps warm fuzzy. A satisfying day at work is not going to provide me basic and safety needs. We psychologically assume a fulfilling toil SHOULD equate to a living wage, but it does not. A job that provides me the kind of monetary compensation necessary to cover my subsistence AND self-actualization is much more attractive than becoming a starving artist. As mutually exclusive a construct as that sounds, the number of workers that love what they do and get paid greatly to do so are statistical outliers. The majority of people fall somewhere in the middle of a job they hate and get paid enough to stay and a job they love that leaves them starving (and are privately hateful of this job too).
Like an engineering optimization problem, the goal is to find the optimal solution in an environment that holds more than one constraint as a variable. It is up to the individual to determine how much these multiple constraints weigh when compared to each other, and find the solution that optimizes your personal values. This is something you must find yourself.
In my case, I wouldn't pursue something I can't relate at all to, regardless of money, as my work ethic in the pursuit of such an approach will have me terminated in short order and that doesn't help me attain the material affluence I pursued the job in the first place. But a job I can safely tolerate and pays above the threshold I need to attain what I WANT (and not merely need) in life? Yeah I can go for that and stick with it. A job I love and I can't pay the bills with? (and believe me, being in aviation, I know of many such jobs) Forget THAT! No way. I know people who love riding roller coasters. They don't go attempt to make a living at it at $6.50 a pop and no health insurance for it. Leave that hollow advice for the disney world movie high school and college counselors live in.
"Enjoyable job" is somewhat of a misnomer concept. It seems to be based upon the unchallenged acceptance that you spend most of your breathing moments at work, instead of at home or with your family. That's a very American-narrow view of the world, first of all. If we didn't spend 75% of our waking moments at work then finding value in pursuing work that entertains you wouldn't be so important. After a certain threshold, a merely "tolerable" job becomes sufficient. I don't care how much you love what you do, when the paycheck at the end of the month leaves you struggling or merely not attaining the lifestyle or material affluence you deem desirable for your daily troubles, you'll grow tired and resentful of that job you "love".
Secondly, Maslow trumps warm fuzzy. A satisfying day at work is not going to provide me basic and safety needs. We psychologically assume a fulfilling toil SHOULD equate to a living wage, but it does not. A job that provides me the kind of monetary compensation necessary to cover my subsistence AND self-actualization is much more attractive than becoming a starving artist. As mutually exclusive a construct as that sounds, the number of workers that love what they do and get paid greatly to do so are statistical outliers. The majority of people fall somewhere in the middle of a job they hate and get paid enough to stay and a job they love that leaves them starving (and are privately hateful of this job too).
Like an engineering optimization problem, the goal is to find the optimal solution in an environment that holds more than one constraint as a variable. It is up to the individual to determine how much these multiple constraints weigh when compared to each other, and find the solution that optimizes your personal values. This is something you must find yourself.
In my case, I wouldn't pursue something I can't relate at all to, regardless of money, as my work ethic in the pursuit of such an approach will have me terminated in short order and that doesn't help me attain the material affluence I pursued the job in the first place. But a job I can safely tolerate and pays above the threshold I need to attain what I WANT (and not merely need) in life? Yeah I can go for that and stick with it. A job I love and I can't pay the bills with? (and believe me, being in aviation, I know of many such jobs) Forget THAT! No way. I know people who love riding roller coasters. They don't go attempt to make a living at it at $6.50 a pop and no health insurance for it. Leave that hollow advice for the disney world movie high school and college counselors live in.
Good luck
Thanks hindsight. You're absolutely right about Maslow.
Thank God my passion is in the area of Computer Science, which is both research-oriented AND industrially applicable.
I hear you out on the starving artist though. This raises the question, should parents indoctrinate their kids, to a certain extent, to pursue a particular field of interest? This way, there might be a greater chance their passion might line up with a livable income?
Great post hindsight - did you employ any in that? LOL
Seriously I have known a lot of people who go the doctor/lawyer etc route and turn out not to be happy - simlarly those who have had the 'great corporate job' seem to hate it after a while and surprise- most of those jobs don't last like the drone positions.
Then why is it that so many youngsters (like me) aim for a career that will get them the maximum amount of money rather than something that makes one passionate (and has production/knowledge value), like science/engineering?
Most of the friends I know aim to be surgeons, investment bankers, or lawyers. When asked who wants to be a scientist, or even engineer, there is a look of disgust on their faces.
Maybe it is just at this period in our lives that young adults tend to value more what they can "show off" to others than adults do. Thus, of course having flashy cars, big house, and luxurious lifestyle seems worth way more striving than perhaps, than some career they find more meaningful.
What are your thoughts about money and the enjoyability of life... this is from a male perspective, so it seems that the issue of status really does play a role. Sometimes I wish I were born a woman, since they say that (most) women tend to pick careers based on personal meaningfulness and don't really care as much (and aren't judged as much, obviously) by how much they can bank from their jobs.
I know it is right to pursue a job that one finds more meaningful, but unfortunately it seems that the issue of status (as a male) brings me down to reality... being a scientist sure isn't considered a "sexy", enviable, or high-status career (in terms of wealth). I know there are some out there, but I doubt that many women would choose a scientist over a banker, doctor, or lawyer. I also know the thing about sour grapes and was hoping that wouldn't happen to me one day either. So confused Any advice or words of wisdom?
Believe it or not, based on what I've read in several books on wealth, most millionaires are people you'd least expect. Do you wanna know why? Because they live modestly. They don't waste money on cars that depreciate in value, they live in a house that suits the size of their family, and they don't spend frivolously.
Personally, I always planned on living a modest life. I get to travel for work and also take at least one or two personal trips a years (mainly domestic). I have a few bills, but the rest of the money I make goes into savings. I'm forecasting my net worth to go up by close to 100% this year alone.
Quite frankly, if I ever meet a woman more concerned with my money than me, forget about her. There are more than enough out there that aren't concerned with what they can flaunt around with your money.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Any advice or words of wisdom?
