Which would you rather?

lesserspottedchloe

A. A job that's very well paid and provides 'status', security, weath, a big house, nice car and all the trimmings BUT you absolutely hate what you do, people you work with/for and everything related to your job with a passion. Outside of that 40hrs your happy out.

B. A job that pays very little and offers little security meaning you can only afford to live in a little old house, drive a banger, bills are expensive, you're not seen as 'successful', have to sometimes scrimp and save for things like holidays and new clothes BUT you absolutely love what you do and everything related to your job-you look forward to starting every morning! Outside of that 40hrs your happy out.

MagicMarker

B.

Easy.

Micky Dolenz

I already have B, but I hate doing the job.

lesserspottedchloe

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

I already have B, but I hate doing the job.

Captain Chaos

Can't put a price on happiness.

Grolschevik

I've done B for close to 15 years. It gets old -- not fast, but it does. Now I want A.

KeithM89_old

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

I already have B, but I hate doing the job.

Ah cumon now, modding isnt that bad :P

hondasam

I have a mixture of A and B.

Tonyandthewhale

B. easy.

The only point to being well of finanncially is that you're more secure and thus (presumably) less stressed and happier. This advantage disappears if you're quality of life is impeded by hating 40 hours of you week every week. I wouldn't choose to be so poor that I starve but I also wouldn't choose extra money if I couldn't enjoy it.

hondasam

KeithM89 wrote: »

Ah cumon now, modding isnt that bad :P

you are just a baby at it yet.

Kojak

AB negative for me.

Wait, is this about blood types???

paky

neither. i hate work

Fran1985

i'm in B, did A before liked the lifestyle but the work was a drag. Used to smoke my brains out working in that gig. Thing of the past now, i don't make huge money but enough to cover bills and a night out a month

Shelli2

At a younger age I would jump at B....

now with a small person to care for I'd much prefer A, would love a 9-5 that I hate if it means I can come home worry free and afford all the things my little man deserves.

redz11

laylah wrote: »

A. A job that's very well paid and provides 'status', security, weath, a big house, nice car and all the trimmings BUT you absolutely hate what you do, people you work with/for and everything related to your job with a passion. Outside of that 40hrs your happy out.

B. A job that pays very little and offers little security meaning you can only afford to live in a little old house, drive a banger, bills are expensive, you're not seen as 'successful', have to sometimes scrimp and save for things like holidays and new clothes BUT you absolutely love what you do and everything related to your job-you look forward to starting every morning! Outside of that 40hrs your happy out.

At the moment, I have an unpleasant mix of A and B. "you absolutely hate what you do, people you work with/for and everything related to your job with a passion" and "you can only afford to live in a little old house, drive a banger, bills are expensive, you're not seen as 'successful', have to sometimes scrimp and save for things like holidays and new clothes" .... except it's often a 70-80 hour week, not a 40 hour week.

So yeah, either A or B would be an improvement for me ...!

Honestly I'd probably go for option A, if it was only 40 hours a week.

5starpool

I'd hate to be poor, so mostly A for me.

TheZohanS

A. Work to live, don't live to work. I'd gladly do 40hrs each week if I was happy out outside those hours.

bonerm

"A."

I love hanging around all day with people I hate.

kfallon

A. All the way, work is only 8 hours a day, 5 days a week and if it allows me to enjoy myself for the 16 hours I'm not there that's good enough for me. The happiness in my social life is far more important in my work life plus it can't be that bad if I only have to do 40 hours a week

Dudess

B. There are drawbacks to it but it beats dreading going to work. I've no interest in status, or a big house (pain to clean, and I don't see the point in disused space) or a new/big car (once it's not constantly breaking down - job done), clothes from New Look - fine. I've had jobs I hated, and they take up too much of your week to be unhappy in. Even if B was only a meh job, I'd still prefer it to A.

wonderfulname

A, definitely, a well paid, high status job that's a straight 40hrs? Nothing extra? Leaving the rest to be enjoyed fully? The standard two week break to go where ever on earth you want? The job gives you the ability to do more, and securely, who the hell wants the job of their dreams if they're coming home to sh*t?

Agricola

kfallon wrote: »

it can't be that bad if I only have to do 40 hours a week

Only!

Try getting up 2-3 hours before you start work to commute 20/30/40 miles and then do it all again that evening, five days a week. Try spending 1 in 4 of those weeks working til midnight or maybe even through the night.

40 hours suddenly becomes a huge part of your life!

I dont do any of the above, well not anymore. It was no cakewalk.

To answer the OP - Id probably stick it out being rich and hating my work. I needz da dollaz, dollaz, dollaz is what I need!

Hank_Jones

paky wrote: »

neither. i hate work

Ahh, secret option C, sponge off the dole forever.

Dudess

Shelli2 wrote: »

At a younger age I would jump at B....

now with a small person to care for I'd much prefer A, would love a 9-5 that I hate if it means I can come home worry free and afford all the things my little man deserves.

To be fair, if I had a child, I'd pick A. But only looking after myself, I'd manage on B. It was the case with my last job, and there was a lot about it I didn't like, but I managed on the meagre wage. I see what people mean about it just being 40 hours and what's going on outside it is all that matters, but I disagree. It's most of your day, five days a week. If it's really awful it could affect you outside of work.

Loanshark Blues

B..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CPdr4tWwPw

5starpool

Agricola wrote: »

Only!

Try getting up 2-3 hours before you start work to commute 20/30/40 miles and then do it all again that evening, five days a week. Try spending 1 in 4 of those weeks working til midnight or maybe even through the night.

40 hours suddenly becomes a huge part of your life!

I dont do any of the above, well not anymore. It was no cakewalk.

To answer the OP - Id probably stick it out being rich and hating my work. I needz da dollaz, dollaz, dollaz is what I need!

If one chooses to live up to 40 miles from your work place, that is their issue, so no point complaining about it. Those that chose to move to Kildare with billions of others to commute and work in Dublin deserve no sympathy for it. If you lose your conveniently placed job and can only get one far away but can't afford to move closer, then that is a different thing though.

EverEvolving

I almost had A - well without the security bit unfortunately and it was fine, you get by. Just because you hate what you do doesn't mean you can't make it bearable for yourself. Especially when you know the bank balance is going to be healthy at the end of the month.

I'd love to try B, I can only imagine a job doing something I love as usually when I actually HAVE to do something, it is no longer a very attractive proposition.

Chuck Stone

B for me.

I think that you can work to live and have an job you like.

There's nothing more spirit crushing and mentally de-stabilising than a job you hate.

Plus, I consider myself fairly resourceful so I could make a little old house nice and comfy for cheap.

flutterflye

Obviously B.

If given the option, why would anyone chose A?

Dudess

I guess it depends on how much you hate it though. I'd tolerate a job I dislike, but not one that made me miserable.

lesserspottedchloe

Loanshark Blues wrote: »

B..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CPdr4tWwPw

I'd marry Fry if he'd have me...sigh:pac:

cruiser178

Captain Chaos wrote: »

Can't put a price on happiness.

Yes you can, its option A. ive been at option B, still am

Dudess

flutterflye wrote: »

Obviously B.

If given the option, why would anyone chose A?

People with dependants, people who like having a lot of money, people who don't want the stress of lack of job security. I don't think there's anything wrong with choosing A.

kfallon

Agricola wrote: »

Only!

Try getting up 2-3 hours before you start work to commute 20/30/40 miles and then do it all again that evening, five days a week. Try spending 1 in 4 of those weeks working til midnight or maybe even through the night.

40 hours suddenly becomes a huge part of your life!

I dont do any of the above, well not anymore. It was no cakewalk.

To answer the OP - Id probably stick it out being rich and hating my work. I needz da dollaz, dollaz, dollaz is what I need!

Live closer to work! That's what I did, only a couple of minutes walk to work each day.

And it sounds like you were doing more than 40 hours a week if you were working til midnight or 'through the night'. That's not the descritption the OP gaves us, it was clearly stated it was 'only' 40 hours a week, the standard working week for most people. When people start hating their jobs it's because it's taking over their lives and social life, 40 hours a week (wether 8 hours a day or 3 12ish hour shifts a week) is not taking over your life.

flutterflye

Dudess wrote: »

People with dependants, people who like having a lot of money, people who don't want the stress of lack of job security. I don't think there's anything wrong with choosing A.

I've 2 kids and a mortgage, and I would rather they have a happy mother than lots of 'stuff'.

Dudess

flutterflye wrote: »

I've 2 kids and a mortgage, and I would rather they have a happy mother than lots of 'stuff'.

But B describes a job that wouldn't pay enough to support one child, let alone two. Plus, it lacks security. I'm thinking in terms of A providing stability, didn't say a thing about loads of stuff.

flutterflye

Dudess wrote: »

But B describes a job that wouldn't pay enough to support one child, let alone two. Plus, it lacks security. I'm thinking in terms of A providing stability, didn't say a thing about loads of stuff.

Yes, but no one remains on a low wage.
You gain experience over time, and build on that.

Do what you love and the money will follow.

Agricola

5starpool wrote: »

If one chooses to live up to 40 miles from your work place, that is their issue, so no point complaining about it. Those that chose to move to Kildare with billions of others to commute and work in Dublin deserve no sympathy for it. If you lose your conveniently placed job and can only get one far away but can't afford to move closer, then that is a different thing though.

I live in that strange netherworld outside Dublin called "the rest of the country"
I worked in the arse end of Wexford and travelled from south county Carlow everyday. Since I was settled where I was, and the job was far from brain surgery with good career opportunities, I was hardly going to move to the big schmoke of Wexford was I!

kfallon wrote: »

Live closer to work! That's what I did, only a couple of minutes walk to work each day.

And it sounds like you were doing more than 40 hours a week if you were working til midnight or 'through the night'. That's not the descritption the OP gaves us, it was clearly stated it was 'only' 40 hours a week, the standard working week for most people. When people start hating their jobs it's because it's taking over their lives and social life, 40 hours a week (wether 8 hours a day or 3 12ish hour shifts a week) is not taking over your life.

Shift work. Lots of people dont have the luxury of a standard 9 to 5, even though they are doing a 40 hour week also.

Grolschevik

flutterflye wrote: »

Yes, but no one remains on a low wage.
You gain experience over time, and build on that.

Do what you love and the money will follow.

With all due respect, balls!

kfallon

Agricola wrote: »

Shift work. Lots of people dont have the luxury of a standard 9 to 5, even though they are doing a 40 hour week also.

Yeah, what about it? You still have 128 hours to yourself each week no matter what way your shifts fall do you not? I would say people who are doing 10-12 hour days, 5 or 6 days a week have more to moan about than those on shift work.

If Option 'A' included 40 hours a week in shift work I'd still gladly take it over option 'B'

Abi

laylah wrote: »

BUT you absolutely love what you do and everything related to your job-you look forward to starting every morning! Outside of that 40hrs your happy out.

I don't see how you could be that ^

With below hanging over you. It's a contradiction in terms.

B. A job that pays very little and offers little security meaning you can only afford to live in a little old house, drive a banger, bills are expensive, you're not seen as 'successful', have to sometimes scrimp and save for things like holidays and new clothes

I'd be happy with moderately happy at work and moderate pay, managing the bills without too much hassle etc., but if we're forced to make a choice with those extremes I'd have to say A. I wouldn't like the idea of constantly worrying about losing my home. I can live without lifes luxuries, but not my home.

flutterflye

Grolschevik wrote: »

With all due respect, balls!

Ha! How so?

If you are doing something you love, you are going to be motivated and productive in your work, so are bound to get promoted, or at least good references so you can move to a similar but better paid job.

And of course you can do courses and training along your way to better your chances.

yogidc26

Shelli2 wrote: »

At a younger age I would jump at B....

now with a small person to care for I'd much prefer A, would love a 9-5 that I hate if it means I can come home worry free and afford all the things my little man deserves.

I had A up it a few months ago I gave it up I could not stick it I was taking work home with me Kids were not happy and family life was crap. I have B a job now that pays less that half of what I was getting and our family life has never been better we have very little money for luxury items but playing and laughing the kids makes up for it

flutterflye wrote: »

I've 2 kids and a mortgage, and I would rather they have a happy mother than lots of 'stuff'.

Yep and if you ask them what they want they will tell you the same (well most of the time;))

Dudess

flutterflye wrote: »

Ha! How so?

If you are doing something you love, you are going to be motivated and productive in your work, so are bound to get promoted, or at least good references so you can move to a similar but better paid job.

And of course you can do courses and training along your way to better your chances.

The lack of security though (sticking with the OP's scenario) - one thing if it's just me, but not if I had a child. That's just my take on it. At the same time though, yeah, if I was absolutely miserable in the job to the point of having it on my mind outside of work, that wouldn't be much good to the kid.

Actually OP, to answer your question: it depends. :pac:

Grolschevik

flutterflye wrote: »

Ha! How so?

If you are doing something you love, you are going to be motivated and productive in your work, so are bound to get promoted, or at least good references so you can move to a similar but better paid job.

And of course you can do courses and training along your way to better your chances.

I'm sorry. That sounds very naively optimistic. Are you young and idealistic?

It entirely depends on your chosen field.

If you are a talented jazz guitarist, for example, it may not apply.

Or a self-employed person with only one major client.

Or a university lecturer who loves teaching but can't quite get on board with the "publish or perish" aspect.

Or anyone doing what they love but in a short-term contract context.

Grolschevik

yogidc26 wrote: »

I was taking work home with me Kids were not happy and family life was crap.

That's outside the OP's scenario/conditions.

Dudess

Grolschevik wrote: »

I'm sorry. That sounds very naively optimistic. Are you young and idealistic?

In fairness, she said she's a mother of two and has a mortgage. Doesn't rule out naive optimism, but she's gonna be more acquainted with reality than many.

Grolschevik

Dudess wrote: »

In fairness, she said she's a mother and a has a mortgage.

Fair enough! Missed that.

If there is another earner in that family, is he/she A or B? It'd make a difference...

flutterflye

Grolschevik wrote: »

I'm sorry. That sounds very naively optimistic. Are you young and idealistic?

It entirely depends on your chosen field.

If you are a talented jazz guitarist, for example, it may not apply.

Or a self-employed person with only one major client.

Or a university lecturer who loves teaching but can't quite get on board with the "publish or perish" aspect.

Or anyone doing what they love but in a short-term contract context.

Well some of my friends are artists, actors, musicians etc...

Some of them work in a related field as their day job and in their actual feild when they can.

e.g. One friend is an actress, and works in a theatre. She started out at front of house in a small theatre in Dublin, moved her way up, and now is a manager in one of the bigger theatres in London.
Her job allows her to take time off for rehearsals and shows when necessary.

Could give you loads more similar examples.

Whatever the field, you just do it, and work your way up.

Most of the time people spend the majority of time in work - Why be miserable most of the time?

whatswhat

hondasam wrote: »

I have a mixture of A and B.

Ditto. Just longing for a win on lotto to get me to C. which would be a nice house and car and thats it. No worries!:)

flutterflye

Grolschevik wrote: »

Fair enough! Missed that.

If there is another earner in that family, is he/she A or B? It'd make a difference...

Neither!

Does a job he hates, but earning pittance!