Job Selection Criteria: Money versus Happiness

[symbolipoint]

If you do things you are exceptionally good at, you will probably be happier and make more money. There are other factors to consider, but that's a good starting point. Division of labor is a major benefit of developed economies.

Could you please clarify what you mean by this?

The "Division of labor" comment makes good sense to me, if not to others.

Notice he said "developed economies", so the community is part of a well developed modern society. Farming has long ago been well organized. Great many machines have been used to make a great many more machines to make some parts of daily living easier. In the less developed economy, a bunch of people must tend to farming and several others must go hunting and a few others go to gathering stuff to eat. Nobody goes to the store for anything. In a more modern situation, someone with great talent may learn to play piano and make a great career out of it.

 

[David Lewis]

(2) You enjoy doing the things that you are exceptionally good at

I agree. This is a challenge. If it's the type of activity that most people enjoy doing then it's not so easy to demand big money.

 

[Suyash Singh]

It's a more complex confluence of factors.

Our economic system rewards people who can whack a ball with a stick exceptionally well or throw a ball through a hoop exceptionally well much better than people who can teach our kids exceptionally well.

Perhaps you can stop watching sports and not give them money?
I never watch sports pure waste of good time and money.

 

[symbolipoint]

Perhaps you can stop watching sports and not give them money?
I never watch sports pure waste of good time and money.

The point David Lewis was making was that sources of money tend to flow toward talented people, including and especially toward people with very popular talent. Sports and Music often are popular, even if not every member in society takes interest in them.

 

[CrysPhys]

Perhaps you can stop watching sports and not give them money?
I never watch sports pure waste of good time and money.

And that is your personal choice. Watching sports adds no value to your life, so you are not willing to pay for it. But obviously professional sports is big business because watching sports does add value to many people's lives. A sufficiently large number of customers are willing to pay sufficiently large sums of money to support the large payouts to star athletes. Fans are generally happier when their team wins; and happier fans generally are willing to go to more games and pay higher ticket prices.

On the flip side, I personally see no value in super expensive cars. But super expensive cars sell because a sufficient number of customers with sufficient money do see value in them. And you aspire to be one of those customers, correct?

 

[CrysPhys]

I agree. This is a challenge. If it's the type of activity that most people enjoy doing then it's not so easy to demand big money.

Not sure what you're saying. Are you saying that jobs that are enjoyable for most people necessarily don't pay well? That employers are willing to pay well only for jobs that most people don't enjoy?

One of the points I was making in Post #29 was that happiness via a job not only requires that you be exceptionally good at what you do, but that you also enjoy what you do. You can be exceptionally good at what you do, and get well compensated for it, even though you don't particularly enjoy it [I was in this scenario as a patent agent in a law firm]. But you can be exceptionally good at what you do, get well compensated for it, and enjoy it [I was in this scenario as a physicist in a R&D lab]. And I believe this is true, e.g., of musicians once they have established a large enough fan base to perform the music that they want to perform [rather than the type of music that the studio they signed a contract with dictates that they perform]: they are exceptionally good musicians, they truly enjoy their music, they have a large customer (fan) base, and they are well compensated (their fans are willing to pay for records and concerts and fan merchandise).

 

[Suyash Singh]

On the flip side, I personally see no value in super expensive cars. But super expensive cars sell because a sufficient number of customers with sufficient money do see value in them. And you aspire to be one of those customers, correct?

Car companies are useful as they promote competition to build better and cheaper cars and also support research projects.Mostly AI in vehicles are being implemented by private companies.
Car companies don't steal your money and throw away it on drugs or something unlike entertainers.
The money car companies get is beneficial for the society as a whole over long periods of time.
Now what a entertainer would do with a lot of money is as follows,
1. Go crazy and ruin the society.
2. use words like "feminism" and "black people" the way they are not supposed to be and twist their meaning to the point where only idiots are benefiting at the loss of competent people
3. Buy drugs and promote them indirectly.
4. Buy the judiciary literally and arrest other people under false allegations.
i could go on and on

Too much power or money concentrated in the hands of one person is never good. That too in the hands of such a useless person.
Company CEOs are generally stable minded and serve as an inspiration for other people to do good stuff.

 

[jbriggs444]

I like this passage from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_value#Marginalism

"Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk illustrated this with the example of a farmer having five sacks of grain.[7]

"With the first, he will make bread to survive. With the second, he will make more bread, in order to be strong enough to work. With the next, he will feed his farm animals. The next is used to make whisky, and the last one he feeds to the pigeons. If one of those bags is stolen, he will not reduce each of those activities by one-fifth; instead he will stop feeding the pigeons.

"So the value of the fifth bag of grain is equal to the satisfaction he gets from feeding the pigeons. If he sells that bag and neglects the pigeons, his least productive use of the remaining grain is to make whisky, so the value of a fourth bag of grain is the value of his whisky. Only if he loses four bags of grain will he start eating less; that is the most productive use of his grain. The last bag of grain is worth his life.

If we are talking about the difference between feeding lots of pigeons and feeding fewer pigeons, I'd say take the job you love. The extra money isn't worth that much. [But if we're talking about the difference between life and death, take the job that keeps you alive]

 

[CrysPhys]

Company CEOs are generally stable minded and serve as an inspiration for other people to do good stuff.

Oh, you mean exemplars like Jeff Skilling, Dennis Kozlowski, and Rich McGinn?

 

[Suyash Singh]

Oh, you mean exemplars like Jeff Skilling, Dennis Kozlowski, and Rich McGinn?

thats why i said "generally"
i don't even know those people you mentioned cause i don't focus on bad examples
See examples like "Sundar Pichai", "Satya Nadela".

Sorry if it sounds racist but try to avoid american examples.Bad things are expected from them if they get too much power.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Sorry if it sounds racist

Why yes, yes it does.

It also sounds ungrateful to all the Americans who are trying to help you.

 

[CrysPhys]

thats why i said "generally"
i don't even know those people you mentioned cause i don't focus on bad examples
See examples like "Sundar Pichai", "Satya Nadela".

Sorry if it sounds racist but try to avoid american examples.Bad things are expected from them if they get too much power.

So,

(a) You generalize the behavior of CEOs by lauding the good behavior exhibited by some CEOs and dismissing the bad behavior exhibited by other CEOs; and
(b) You generalize the behavior of entertainers by excoriating the bad behavior exhibited by some entertainers and dismissing the good behavior exhibited by other entertainers.

In the words of Mr. Spock, "This is not logical."

 

[Suyash Singh]

So,

(a) You generalize the behavior of CEOs by lauding the good behavior exhibited by some CEOs and dismissing the bad behavior exhibited by other CEOs; and
(b) You generalize the behavior of entertainers by excoriating the bad behavior exhibited by some entertainers and dismissing the good behavior exhibited by other entertainers.

In the words of Mr. Spock, "This is not logical."

Behaviour of really powerful or rich people mainly depends on the condition where they come from and live in.
Entertainers have a very high probability of damaging society as they "mostly" come from much better situations, basically get overnight success, and their fan base includes children who treat them like gods and get brainwashed easily.
While CEOs who are stable minded generally come from not so good conditions and have worked their way up.

CEOs can be punished for their bad behaviour by the law.
while
Its nearly impossible to punish an entertainer for his/her bad behaviour if it is a popular decision.

 

[Suyash Singh]

Why yes, yes it does.

It also sounds ungrateful to all the Americans who are trying to help you.

There are region specific "tendencies"
Like Indians tend to disrespect women if they are not educated because the uneducated Indians tend to be around dumb women or gold diggers(only applies for rural areas)
Thus Americans tend to be crazy when they get too much power or money for some reason which i don't know about.

 

[russ_watters]

This thread has run its course and is now headed in a direction it shouldn't go, so it is locked. Thanks for the great responses to the original question guys.