If you could quit your job tomorrow and be financially okay, would you?

[Ideologue]

Oh, I missed that.

I'd still take it, I guess.  A guaranteed income like that has a lot of value.

[Jacob]

Yeah... if the guaranteed income is trading up from where you are and where you expect you can reach, that's quite different from if it's trading down from where you are currently.

[Ideologue]

I mean, there's a decent chance I could get a job paying $45k+.

But why chance a sure thing on the marginal value (especially when you take opportunity cost of working into account), especially when the prospect of catastrophe has not been foreclosed?

[garbon]

Yeah... if the guaranteed income is trading up from where you are and where you expect you can reach, that's quite different from if it's trading down from where you are currently.

[Iormlund]

IMO, I would never be satisfied with any definition of ok. I don't think that's possible for homo sapiens. We're too restless for that. I would always need to be working on the next project or whatever, and I think most everyone would also--whether we know it or not.

I think it's easy to think this way when you're constantly struggling to make ends meet financially like most people are, or struggling to keep the bears out of the cave so your kids don't eaten or whatever. But I think most people, even if given an unlimited amount of wealth, would not be ok with that. They'd still be unsatisfied. I know I would.

I don't agree with this. First of all, most people dislike their job. Second, in my experience most people will rather not use their brain at all if they can get away with it.

As for the few that could become restless without something to do, they could always use their newly found spare time to take on personal projects or volunteer to help others without pay.

[garbon]

IMO, I would never be satisfied with any definition of ok. I don't think that's possible for homo sapiens. We're too restless for that. I would always need to be working on the next project or whatever, and I think most everyone would also--whether we know it or not.

I think it's easy to think this way when you're constantly struggling to make ends meet financially like most people are, or struggling to keep the bears out of the cave so your kids don't eaten or whatever. But I think most people, even if given an unlimited amount of wealth, would not be ok with that. They'd still be unsatisfied. I know I would.

I don't agree with this. First of all, most people dislike their job. Second, in my experience most people will rather not use their brain at all if they can get away with it.

As for the few that could become restless without something to do, they could always use their newly found spare time to take on personal projects or volunteer to help others without pay.

While I lean more towards what you are saying than MiM, I don't think in general that happiness would increase if there were more people who didn't have to work because they were financially set for life. The problems just change.

[crazy canuck]

IMO, I would never be satisfied with any definition of ok. I don't think that's possible for homo sapiens. We're too restless for that. I would always need to be working on the next project or whatever, and I think most everyone would also--whether we know it or not.

I think it's easy to think this way when you're constantly struggling to make ends meet financially like most people are, or struggling to keep the bears out of the cave so your kids don't eaten or whatever. But I think most people, even if given an unlimited amount of wealth, would not be ok with that. They'd still be unsatisfied. I know I would.

I don't agree with this. First of all, most people dislike their job. Second, in my experience most people will rather not use their brain at all if they can get away with it.

As for the few that could become restless without something to do, they could always use their newly found spare time to take on personal projects or volunteer to help others without pay.

While I lean more towards what you are saying than MiM, I don't think in general that happiness would increase if there were more people who didn't have to work because they were financially set for life. The problems just change.

The most unhappy, self destructive people I know are in the idle rich grouping. 

[Eddie Teach]

Idle rich beats idle poor.

[merithyn]

Under the circumstances described, I don't think anyone could confuse them for the idle rich.

[garbon]

Under the circumstances described, I don't think anyone could confuse them for the idle rich.

But still idle.

[crazy canuck]

The main difference between the idle rich and the idle poor is that the idle rich have the means to do some serious damage to themselves and perhaps more importantly to others.

[The Larch]

Under the poll conditions you don't have to be idle, it's just that you can't have a salary. Thus, volunteering, charities or similar non for profit ventures would be ok.

[merithyn]

Under the circumstances described, I don't think anyone could confuse them for the idle rich.

But still idle.

That's one option, but not one that I'd choose.

[garbon]

Under the circumstances described, I don't think anyone could confuse them for the idle rich.

But still idle.

That's one option, but not one that I'd choose.

I'd have to be. I wouldn't be able to afford the things I like to do.

[Eddie Teach]

I'd have to be. I wouldn't be able to afford the things I like to do.

You could just do them in a smaller city.