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.
Aside from the advertising exec, the rest of the guys seemed to have one-time, SMALL windfalls (anything short of 2 million is fairly small since you cannot retire on that money) that are not indicative of their continued abilities for success. For example, it is unlikely that the trivia master is going to go on another episode of WWTBAM and win 1M anytime soon. I would probably see them both as underskilled or underemployed. Furthermore, their desire for travel / side jobs show lack of focus, which to me suggests too much instability for marriage material. However, dating might be fine.
The ad exec has proven his ability to make money by use of his own skills so he is entitled to take time off, doing whatever endeavors make him happy.
The wall street people I just have no respect for. I don't like people who play with stocks for a living because to me, that is not a real product and does not help society. They could earn 10M a year and I would never respect them, though I might be tempted to marry and divorce them and take half of everything they make, then donate it to charity, muahaha. For all the commissions they made, somebody must have lost a portion of their life savings. Bad juju. There was a taxicab driver who used to be an investment banker. He kept talking about the good old days and saying that he is going to make a comeback. Then he kept asking us what we did for a living, as if to compare. Like.... man, we do not want to hear your life story!!! All of us in the cab were too embarrassed to say what we did for a living because we didn't want him to feel bad. So he kept asking until we got out of the car. Ugh.
With your personal situation. I wouldn't lump you with the unemployed since you have a choice to go back into employment anytime. But your travel plans? How does that fit in with your ability to have a relationship? That would be my main concern.
Okay, interesting perspective, so lets call the guy who made his 400,000 windfall from the startup Daniel and explore some issues.
Before he got that windfall when the company went public several years ago, his base salary was about 60,000 a year and he was there for several years(about five). We all agree that a guy who earns 60,000 a year is more employed and is more stable, hard working, than a guy who is currently not working at all. Yes, However, 60,000 times five years ( the amount of time) he worked at the startup=300,000 dollars, plus the 400,000 windfall when it went public= 700,000 gross
Let us take a stereotypical unemployed guy, lets call him Bob. bob has been earning and doing nothing for the past five years. He is lazy and has no skills or goals.
Daniel worked 60 hour weeks at the startup, showed iniative for the five years, and worked very hard grossing 700,000 in five years. Yet the fact that he worked harder than Bob for the past five years does not count for anything, the very second he resigned after he cashed out.
(Despite the fact that he has a decent company on his resume in his subfield of technology and some skills and did work hard.)
While he is taking off some time to learn screenwriting and travel, he could with his experience and some contacts in his field get another job.
Let us explore the logical of the following rules, 1. A guy who does not currently work at a job is unemployed 2.an unemployed guy is lazy and has no prospects and go through this scenario
1. Daniel works very very hard and shows creativity at his startup working 60 hour weeks. On the day the startup has its big payday and his stock options vest, he currently is at his desk working on a project. On that exact day,he is a ambitious stable hardworking guy with great prospects.
2. The next day, Daniel decides to cash in his 400,000 and take time off to travel and study screenwriting. On the exact day, his car pulls away from the tech company campus, he now is an unemployed lazy guy with no prospects.
3. Let us suppose, today he is in Hawaii surfing living off his money.On that exact day, he does not hold a job which makes him by definition unemployed, which makes him by definition lazy with no prospects. When Daniel picks up his cell phone, he gets an offer he can't refuse from Oracle or Google. He agrees. At that exact moment, he no is employed which by definition makes him a hard working ambitious guy with great prospects.
In reality, no change occured between 1,2, and 3 in terms of Daniel's true ability, character, or even long term career prospects, yet by certain rules each time a women met him during a specific stage, she would view him as completely different.
Let us take another rule, women have, if a man is living with his parents, he is immature and lacks the ability to take care of himself. Let us take a hypothetical guy named Scott.
1. Scott lives in a great city, with a nice apartment and is at a company where he works hard and is an expert in his field. It is Febuary. By definition, he is an ambitious guy with prospects, is hard working and ambitious and relationship material.
2. In March, Scott gets laid off, and moves to a city where his parents live, because his industry also has companies there. On Monday, when he was still working at the company, he in women's eyes was an is an ambitious guy with prospects, hard working and ambitious and relationship material. However, on Wednesday, when he flies home to his parents house, to look for jobs in that city, he is by definition, since he is unemployed and living with parents a lazy immature guy with no prospects who cannot take care of himself. Since he has some savings, he could possibly get his own apartment in that city, but he is smart enough to know that it does not make economic sense to enter into a long term lease if you do not know for sure if you will working in that city.
3. In mid May, six weeks later, Scott gets a job in that city, moves into his own apartment and is making great money at the job.
Following logically the rules, some women have about unemployed guys or guys who live with their parents, in Febuary, Scott was an ambitious guy with prospects, hard working and ambitious and relationship material, in March he was a lazy immature guy with no prospects who cannot take care of himself, in mid May, he was again, an ambitious guy with prospects, hard working and ambitious and relationship material. Of course did he really change that much back and forth in a few months?
I guess my point is that some of the rules that women use to judge prospects can seem absurd if applied religously without taking into account:
A. Individual situations
B. A persons very immediate situation versus their true inherent character and ability traits and long term potential.
As another example, I have heard of an executive who took a job several notches down because he really believed in the company/ industry. In the end he rose to be a VP at the company. Of course, when he was at the original executive job he was an ambitious guy with potential, when he had the job several notches below he was a guy who didn't do much with his life and was mediocre, and when he finally became VP he was a big success.
Of course sometimes on the flip side, a guys immediate work/career situation if the result of pure luck can make him look much better than he really is. Many people during a specific year might appear up and coming, but have no real long term prospects or career abilities. Ever hear of the rapper Vanilla Ice or those mortage brokers who seemed to always be making 50,000 a month till the housing market collasped. Of course to some women, such guys even if working at Mcdonald's, now appeared to women to be great long term providers when they were raking in dough.
In response to your long post -- I do not think women judge men based on his status at any point in time. We do not take the differential of a man at a specific time point to figure out his net worth. We integrate his actions over time. Which is why all too often we tend to go for men for their "potential"... which sometimes never is realized. But sometimes we don't even mind.
Why do you think a woman would view somebody completely different despite no core change in personality? I think your initial assumptions are not based on fact. Maybe some women do this, but they tend to be fairly short-sighted opportunists. Living with parents is also not necessarily a relationship killer. Women aren't robots who use self-defeating algorithms to figure out who they will date. Do you have any examples to back this up with?
How do you figure that women don't take into account:
A. Individual situations
B. A persons very immediate situation versus their true inherent character and ability traits and long term potential.
And I already told you I don't like mortgage bankers and such... I'm a woman and I don't know any women who do either (though I tend to keep company with PhDs and MDs)... so how do you figure that we would view these bloodsuckers as good mates?
In response to your long post -- I do not think women judge men based on his status at any point in time. We do not take the differential of a man at a specific time point to figure out his net worth. We integrate his actions over time. Which is why all too often we tend to go for men for their "potential"... which sometimes never is realized. But sometimes we don't even mind.
Why do you think a woman would view somebody completely different despite no core change in personality? I think your initial assumptions are not based on fact. Maybe some women do this, but they tend to be fairly short-sighted opportunists. Living with parents is also not necessarily a relationship killer. Women aren't robots who use self-defeating algorithms to figure out who they will date. Do you have any examples to back this up with?
How do you figure that women don't take into account:
A. Individual situations
B. A persons very immediate situation versus their true inherent character and ability traits and long term potential.
And I already told you I don't like mortgage bankers and such... I'm a woman and I don't know any women who do either (though I tend to keep company with PhDs and MDs)... so how do you figure that we would view these bloodsuckers as good mates?
Well for one thing, there have been several threads on here, asking questions,like Would you date an unemployed guy, would you date a guy who lived at home with his parents, would you date a guy who didn't own his home etc and although some women were sympathetic, many bashed the unemployed and guys who lived at home with their parents. When someone on the "Would you date a guy who didn't own his own home" thread explained logical reasons why a guy would rent rather than own, few if any responded to his post. There was also much cruelty on the unemployment post.
Also, women's magazines and dating books for women seem to treat the above in a derogatory way, as in you will find some dating books written by women for women telling women to stay away from the above and one stated that guys explanations for their current status are just lies and excuses.
You often hear conversations of women when describing their new boyfriend or a suggested date for them, "what does he do for a living."
In my case study of scott, if he tried to attract a woman when he was employed at his first job, attract a woman when briefly unemployed and living with his folks for one and a half months, and then attract one when reemployed thanks to his great resume, skills, and network, he probaly would face a tremendous drop in dating market value during that brief period.
There was an article in the Times about women who were dating high income earning men and then dumped them after they lost their jobs.
Well for one thing, there have been several threads on here, asking questions,like Would you date an unemployed guy, would you date a guy who lived at home with his parents, would you date a guy who didn't own his home etc and although some women were sympathetic, many bashed the unemployed and guys who lived at home with their parents. When someone on the "Would you date a guy who didn't own his own home" thread explained logical reasons why a guy would rent rather than own, few if any responded to his post. There was also much cruelty on the unemployment post.
Also, women's magazines and dating books for women seem to treat the above in a derogatory way, as in you will find some dating books written by women for women telling women to stay away from the above and one stated that guys explanations for their current status are just lies and excuses.
You often hear conversations of women when describing their new boyfriend or a suggested date for them, "what does he do for a living."
In my case study of scott, if he tried to attract a woman when he was employed at his first job, attract a woman when briefly unemployed and living with his folks for one and a half months, and then attract one when reemployed thanks to his great resume, skills, and network, he probaly would face a tremendous drop in dating market value during that brief period.
There was an article in the Times about women who were dating high income earning men and then dumped them after they lost their jobs.
Simple black and white questions addressed on the forums don't generalize to real life people and situations. Obviously women have their standards and would prefer the employed, but they aren't as fickle as you'd imagine (i.e. doing an about face the minute you lose your job). The men who were dumped unceremoniously probably had high income, low respect type jobs - easy come easy go. What SO's do for a living is a question that both men and women have asked in equal numbers. In any case I know plenty of unemployed men who score chicks. They are generally just good at it or good looking. No huge secrets there.
I think women know the difference between someone who is taking time off from working due to having some money saved and someone who is unemployed and broke, simply by viewing their lifestyle. Obviously someone who doesn't have any money will not be able to travel and enjoy life, due to unavailability to afford it.
However, even if a man is taking some time off to enjoy life and spend some of his money, I would still be curious as to what his ambition in life is. You can only take that much time off, unless you had won millions and millions. I don't care that much for how much money a man has, but rather what is his inspirations and ambitions in life, what are his goals?
I do think that if someone is unemployed and broke, he needs to first concentrate on getting back on his feet, instead off dating.
Very good points to consider. Now, if the subject was a woman, would people look at her in such strict terms as it is done on men?, take care.
If you say you're unemployed, then yeah, some women might lose interest.
But if you say... "I'm a stock broker/scientist/whatever, and am currently taking a sabtical to visit several countries in major transition like Cuba and south Africa." it puts a totally different spin on your situation.
Both are true statements, but the second is a lot more accurate - and in this case, being truthful and accurate will definitely work in your favor.
Very good points to consider. Now, if the subject was a woman, would people look at her in such strict terms as it is done on men?, take care.
The standards are different for women. With women, there is the old adage... "a woman's face is her fortune". As long as a woman is beautiful and she isn't a sl*t, she is desirable as a girlfriend and potential marriage partner. And it's not the women that perpetuate these social patterns, it's the menfolk.
Women are judge by how hot looking they are, and the menfolk by their earning capacity. And traditionally it does make sense. Within a marriage, the women raise the children and the men go out and provide for their families. So if a man has lousy job prospects, then he isn't going to be able to support a wife and kids comfortably.
The standards are different for women. With women, there is the old adage... "a woman's face is her fortune". As long as a woman is beautiful and she isn't a sl*t, she is desirable as a girlfriend and potential marriage partner
I agree. Women don’t really need careers, degrees, admirable jobs, good income, attractive car, etc. Doesn't matter if she lives at home or not. As long as she’s pretty to a guy’s eyes and she’s nice to be with, then she’s good to go. A guy will approach her and take care of her. Easy .
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.
Grab 'em While They Are Hot!
.
