Poll
Question:
Read the OP before voting to see what "financially okay" means.
Option 1: Ab-so-LUTE-ly!
Option 2: I'd have to seriously think about it, but probably, yeah
Option 3: 50/50 - I could stay or leave
Option 4: Not likely
Option 5: No way! Not nearly enough
Option 6: No amount is enough. I'd be far too bored.
When I say "financially okay", I don't mean that you've won the lottery or that you get a full-pay retirement package. I mean that you would be pulling in about 4 times the poverty line and would stay at that rate until you died.
Would you leave your job?
Absolutely
*snort*
I have kids to raise, and the amount you list is much less than what I currently earn. So no, not now.
$50,000 a year? Yeah. Fuck yeah.
However: I would probably try continue to work in some capacity, just not my non-job job.
I don't currently make 4 times the poverty line. I'm willing to get that & still work.
I don't fancy living as a poor, so no.
I did vote "would have to think about it" and by that I mean I'd have to look at the tax implications.
If I'm earning $50k for jack shit, I'm going to be paying the rich person rate for $35/40/45k/$? of tedium. While taxes are important, I've always felt that they very unfairly impact people who actually work more. I don't mean are more valuable, but literally labor more severely. This doesn't really apply here, but there's still a serious disincentive issue.
In any event, what I mean is I'd have to see how much my take-home on my wages would be. If it's less than $10hr, ha ha, no fucking way.
It sort of depends what you mean...
I might take a look at my financial obligations, this guaranteed income, and my free time and attempt to grow that into something larger.
If the question is - would you take $40K - $60K/year (depending on how we define poverty line; this could also apply to an individual) and not earn any other income for the rest of your life, then no.
If the question is - would you take that amount and not ever draw a salary again, except from a company you own, then yes (assuming my wife can still work, if not, then fuck no).
Quote from: Jacob on September 17, 2013, 01:35:41 PM
If the question is - would you take $40K - $60K/year (depending on how we define poverty line; this could also apply to an individual) and not earn any other income for the rest of your life, then no.
This
I've never had a job that either payed that much or was enjoyable, so definitely.
Quote from: merithyn on September 17, 2013, 01:37:28 PM
Quote from: Jacob on September 17, 2013, 01:35:41 PM
If the question is - would you take $40K - $60K/year (depending on how we define poverty line; this could also apply to an individual) and not earn any other income for the rest of your life, then no.
This
Okay.
I'll go vote no then.
... or rather "not likely" 'cause I like to hedge my bets a bit.
Not if it's free. If I'm drawing that income from the investing I've done then yes.
Based on Jacob's clarification of the question. No way. Not nearly enough.
:hmm:
Before reading OP, I voted absolutely based on question. Then with stipulation on how much income it was, voted no way. -_-
Quote from: garbon on September 17, 2013, 01:50:24 PM
:hmm:
Before reading OP, I voted absolutely based on question. Then with stipulation on how much income it was, voted no way. -_-
Ditto. My kids would hate me, and rightfully so.
I don't know, I'm too busy trying to figure out what the regional locality increase is to charge for hand jobs to do any more math today.
I was tremendously annoyed with the folks who think $50k (PPP index SC) is not enough to live on.
Then again I made $45k last year. Hmm. OK. You have a point.
Get a two-income household though and blast that to $100k? That's aristo livin'.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 17, 2013, 02:02:35 PM
Get a two-income household though and blast that to $100k? That's aristo livin'.
Where you are maybe.
Quote from: merithyn on September 17, 2013, 01:22:52 PM
When I say "financially okay", I don't mean that you've won the lottery or that you get a full-pay retirement package. I mean that you would be pulling in about 4 times the poverty line and would stay at that rate until you died.
Would you leave your job?
Poverty here is defined as having less than 60% of the average net income, which for a single is about 950 Euro. Living off 240% of the average net income, i.e. 3800 Euro/month net is very comfortable here. That would actually put you among the top 10% or so of the population. So the only reasons not to take this would be the chance to earn even more (i.e. be among the top 5% or so) or boredom without a job.
Whenever median family income reports come out for this area I wonder who the heck can live on that.
If only I could just do it until I finished my degree.
Quote from: merithyn on September 17, 2013, 01:22:52 PM
I mean that you would be pulling in about 4 times the poverty line and would stay at that rate until you died.
Do you mean stay at the dollar amount that's currently 4 times the poverty line, or stay at 4 times the poverty line?
Quote from: garbon on September 17, 2013, 02:06:03 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 17, 2013, 02:02:35 PM
Get a two-income household though and blast that to $100k? That's aristo livin'.
Where you are maybe.
I was gonna say 8X the poverty line in NYC, but...
I looked it up--do they really not calculate poverty line by geographical location? That's the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard of. What's the point?
Quote from: dps on September 17, 2013, 02:12:37 PM
Quote from: merithyn on September 17, 2013, 01:22:52 PM
I mean that you would be pulling in about 4 times the poverty line and would stay at that rate until you died.
Do you mean stay at the dollar amount that's currently 4 times the poverty line, or stay at 4 times the poverty line?
Does it matter? When we're forced to engage in nuclear combat with the Commies 4 times the poverty line won't put food on your table.
Quote from: BrainDoes it matter? When we're forced to engage in nuclear combat with the Commies 4 times the poverty line won't put food on your table.
Who's "we"?
Quote from: dpsstay at 4 times the poverty line?
Actually a good point to be made is that--as garb illustrated obliquely--the poverty line is such an inadequate sum, and could become even more inadequate as time passes or depending upon your locale, I'd rather the OP just said "$11k in 2013 dollars." Not bagging on you, Meri. I thought it was a)higher and b)at least adjusted for geography, so the confusion was mine.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 17, 2013, 02:19:08 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 17, 2013, 02:06:03 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 17, 2013, 02:02:35 PM
Get a two-income household though and blast that to $100k? That's aristo livin'.
Where you are maybe.
I was gonna say 8X the poverty line in NYC, but...
I looked it up--do they really not calculate poverty line by geographical location? That's the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard of. What's the point?
Actually apparently New York City has its own calculation. Still low though as it is 2 parent, 2 children on 31k is poor. NYT article then listed fed government says 22 for same family. :hmm:
The reality is somewhat different:
What would you do if tomorrow your job quit you?
Quote from: mongers on September 17, 2013, 02:26:12 PM
The reality is somewhat different:
What would you do if tomorrow your job quit you?
Pout.
Yes, the slacker life me.
Quote from: mongers on September 17, 2013, 02:26:12 PM
What would you do if tomorrow your job quit you?
Look for another.
Quote from: garbon on September 17, 2013, 02:25:20 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 17, 2013, 02:19:08 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 17, 2013, 02:06:03 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 17, 2013, 02:02:35 PM
Get a two-income household though and blast that to $100k? That's aristo livin'.
Where you are maybe.
I was gonna say 8X the poverty line in NYC, but...
I looked it up--do they really not calculate poverty line by geographical location? That's the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard of. What's the point?
Actually apparently New York City has its own calculation. Still low though as it is 2 parent, 2 children on 31k is poor. NYT article then listed fed government says 22 for same family. :hmm:
That's more-or-less homeless in NYC, right?
Quote from: Ideologue on September 17, 2013, 02:28:57 PM
That's more-or-less homeless in NYC, right?
There are places for ~$1000 a month (I found them when we were looking), which fits that budget, but it would be tight and the places would be shit.
Quote from: mongers on September 17, 2013, 02:26:12 PM
The reality is somewhat different:
What would you do if tomorrow your job quit you?
Sometimes I think it wouldnt be such a bad thing. Then I remember what it is like to be poor and I pick up the next file :D
Quote from: Zanza on September 17, 2013, 02:07:39 PM
Quote from: merithyn on September 17, 2013, 01:22:52 PM
When I say "financially okay", I don't mean that you've won the lottery or that you get a full-pay retirement package. I mean that you would be pulling in about 4 times the poverty line and would stay at that rate until you died.
Would you leave your job?
Poverty here is defined as having less than 60% of the average net income, which for a single is about 950 Euro. Living off 240% of the average net income, i.e. 3800 Euro/month net is very comfortable here. That would actually put you among the top 10% or so of the population. So the only reasons not to take this would be the chance to earn even more (i.e. be among the top 5% or so) or boredom without a job.
Here poverty is established at 7.300 € per year following the same criteria (might be EU wide definitions), so for poll purposes it'd mean living with slightly less than 30k € per year, which would be a pretty sweet deal.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 17, 2013, 02:43:11 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 17, 2013, 02:26:12 PM
The reality is somewhat different:
What would you do if tomorrow your job quit you?
Sometimes I think it wouldnt be such a bad thing. Then I remember what it is like to be poor and I pick up the next file :D
:yes:
Quote from: The Larch on September 17, 2013, 02:46:26 PM
Quote from: Zanza on September 17, 2013, 02:07:39 PM
Quote from: merithyn on September 17, 2013, 01:22:52 PM
When I say "financially okay", I don't mean that you've won the lottery or that you get a full-pay retirement package. I mean that you would be pulling in about 4 times the poverty line and would stay at that rate until you died.
Would you leave your job?
Poverty here is defined as having less than 60% of the average net income, which for a single is about 950 Euro. Living off 240% of the average net income, i.e. 3800 Euro/month net is very comfortable here. That would actually put you among the top 10% or so of the population. So the only reasons not to take this would be the chance to earn even more (i.e. be among the top 5% or so) or boredom without a job.
Here poverty is established at 7.300 € per year following the same criteria (might be EU wide definitions), so for poll purposes it'd mean living with slightly less than 30k € per year, which would be a pretty sweet deal.
Too little to live on, too much to die from.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 17, 2013, 02:08:10 PM
Whenever median family income reports come out for this area I wonder who the heck can live on that.
This.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 17, 2013, 02:43:11 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 17, 2013, 02:26:12 PM
The reality is somewhat different:
What would you do if tomorrow your job quit you?
Sometimes I think it wouldnt be such a bad thing. Then I remember what it is like to be poor and I pick up the next file :D
Just to annoy you, I'll say "me, too". :P
God, I admire your ability to edit your own memories.
Quebec's 2010 1 person household poverty line was 21 772$
Yes, I am willing to quit my job for 80k/year or as they say over 2 times my current salary.
Man, I would even work for $80k a year.
I don't have a job now. :(
It's hard to not mentally decompose once you stop working, so no.
Quote from: DGuller on September 17, 2013, 04:30:46 PM
It's hard to not mentally decompose once you stop working, so no.
I know I'll be doing stuff like finding real estate investments to work on after I retire. It won't be just idle time. There's always a project out there. Travel to do, etc.
Quote from: DGuller on September 17, 2013, 04:30:46 PM
It's hard to not mentally decompose once you stop working, so no.
Yeah, it does kinda suck.
One can keep himself busy without having to work. Don't you have hobbies or other interests? Being financially secure frees lots of time to devote to what you really enjoy doing.
Quote from: Malthus on September 17, 2013, 03:09:26 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 17, 2013, 02:43:11 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 17, 2013, 02:26:12 PM
The reality is somewhat different:
What would you do if tomorrow your job quit you?
Sometimes I think it wouldnt be such a bad thing. Then I remember what it is like to be poor and I pick up the next file :D
Just to annoy you, I'll say "me, too". :P
:D
I left the door wide open for you.
Quote from: The Larch on September 17, 2013, 04:57:58 PM
One can keep himself busy without having to work. Don't you have hobbies or other interests? Being financially secure frees lots of time to devote to what you really enjoy doing.
I think it would be hard to replicate the kind of mental stimulation a person gets in a lot of job settings.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 17, 2013, 05:04:28 PM
Quote from: The Larch on September 17, 2013, 04:57:58 PM
One can keep himself busy without having to work. Don't you have hobbies or other interests? Being financially secure frees lots of time to devote to what you really enjoy doing.
I think it would be hard to replicate the kind of mental stimulation a person gets in a lot of job settings.
And at the same time it's so enjoyable to get rid of all the bullshit. :lol:
How to replicate my last job for the man:
Put a bag of popcorn in the microwave. Let it burn. Enjoy the smell.
Sit in a office. Have the neighborhood knock on your door constantly.
Turn the Internet on and off at irregular intervals. To replicate IT, talk to the wall to your right.
To simulate business trips, put on a suit and check into a holiday inn.
Quote from: DGuller on September 17, 2013, 04:30:46 PM
It's hard to not mentally decompose once you stop working, so no.
I think it is very easy to mentally decompose when working.
Quote from: The Larch on September 17, 2013, 05:08:03 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 17, 2013, 05:04:28 PM
Quote from: The Larch on September 17, 2013, 04:57:58 PM
One can keep himself busy without having to work. Don't you have hobbies or other interests? Being financially secure frees lots of time to devote to what you really enjoy doing.
I think it would be hard to replicate the kind of mental stimulation a person gets in a lot of job settings.
And at the same time it's so enjoyable to get rid of all the bullshit. :lol:
Most things are good in moderation, even the bullshit. The less than fun times you have to suffer through sometimes make the good moments more enjoyable. Plus, for me personally at least, it's nice to feel that what you're doing is very marginally contributing to something bigger. Climbing a mountain or conquering the world in EU4 may feel personally fulfilling, but it leaves the world utterly unchanged.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 17, 2013, 05:10:49 PM
How to replicate my last job for the man:
Put a bag of popcorn in the microwave. Let it burn. Enjoy the smell.
Sit in a office. Have the neighborhood knock on your door constantly.
Turn the Internet on and off at irregular intervals. To replicate IT, talk to the wall to your right.
To simulate business trips, put on a suit and check into a holiday inn.
I made no claim that all jobs were mentally stimulating.
I was just sharing. :)
Quote from: Razgovory on September 17, 2013, 04:10:16 PM
I don't have a job now. :(
So, what are you charging for hand jobs these days?
Quote from: DGuller on September 17, 2013, 04:30:46 PM
It's hard to not mentally decompose once you stop working, so no.
It's this kind of thinking that's stuck us with a 77-year-old great-great-grandmother at the office who refuses to quit, and yet can't really do much of the job anymore, either. :glare:
She's a sweet lady, don't get me wrong, but we really could use someone capable in the office.
Quote from: Zanza on September 17, 2013, 02:07:39 PM
Poverty here is defined as having less than 60% of the average net income, which for a single is about 950 Euro.
60% here too. So yes :mmm:
Quote from: merithyn on September 17, 2013, 06:58:37 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 17, 2013, 04:30:46 PM
It's hard to not mentally decompose once you stop working, so no.
It's this kind of thinking that's stuck us with a 77-year-old great-great-grandmother at the office who refuses to quit, and yet can't really do much of the job anymore, either. :glare:
She's a sweet lady, don't get me wrong, but we really could use someone capable in the office.
Yeah, I get you. She'll be gone within three business days. Leave the package at the usual place.
I always loved the past by their sell date employees. They didn't bother me. :)
Quote from: merithyn on September 17, 2013, 06:58:37 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 17, 2013, 04:30:46 PM
It's hard to not mentally decompose once you stop working, so no.
It's this kind of thinking that's stuck us with a 77-year-old great-great-grandmother at the office who refuses to quit, and yet can't really do much of the job anymore, either. :glare:
She's a sweet lady, don't get me wrong, but we really could use someone capable in the office.
Well imagine what she'd be like without her job.
With the overtime I took this year, I'm going to be close to 4 times the Korean poverty line, so No.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 17, 2013, 08:00:32 PM
I always loved the past by their sell date employees. They didn't bother me. :)
Again, she's very sweet and I really do like her. BUT... it would be nice to have a full-functioning person in the position.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 17, 2013, 08:02:36 PM
Well imagine what she'd be like without her job.
I dunno. She's pretty active even when she's not at work. She only works Monday - Wednesday, and she's constantly telling us about what she does on her long weekends. She's never home, and she's never alone. I think she'd be fine, but hell, if it keeps her happy, I'm glad she's around.
I don't stay in bed for anything less than $150K pa.
Of course.
I'd prefer getting a real job but that would be nice too.
Assuming we owned our own house and my wife could take advantage of the same offer, then I definitely would. I have millions of hobbies I could pursue to fill the time. I'd like to devote time to charitable efforts or causes I was interested a few days a week in order to still feel useful.
Hells yeah if it meant decent living, so eg. I wouldn`t have to feed a family from that alone.
Dguller, you must have hobbies or stuff you would like to pick up as hobbies.
Quote from: merithyn on September 17, 2013, 06:58:37 PM
It's this kind of thinking that's stuck us with a 77-year-old great-great-grandmother at the office who refuses to quit, and yet can't really do much of the job anymore, either. :glare:
She's a sweet lady, don't get me wrong, but we really could use someone capable in the office.
Since old people are generally completely useless, I totally believe you.... what's the problem in her specific case? :hmm:
Quote from: Tamas on September 18, 2013, 04:59:25 AM
Hells yeah if it meant decent living, so eg. I wouldn`t have to feed a family from that alone.
But financially okay is narrowly defined here...in fact, defined in such a way that I wouldn't consider it okay. -_-
Quote from: Caliga on September 18, 2013, 05:14:41 AM
Since old people are generally completely useless, I totally believe you.... what's the problem in her specific case? :hmm:
Nothing, really. She just takes too long to understand new concepts and isn't very detail oriented, which is a problem in billing.
Quote from: garbon on September 18, 2013, 08:33:29 AM
Quote from: Tamas on September 18, 2013, 04:59:25 AM
Hells yeah if it meant decent living, so eg. I wouldn`t have to feed a family from that alone.
But financially okay is narrowly defined here...in fact, defined in such a way that I wouldn't consider it okay. -_-
The thing is, for you, it could mean a pretty good living, just not in New York City. So, the question would be one of: Do I retire somewhere else, or stay working here?
Quote from: merithyn on September 18, 2013, 08:49:10 AM
Quote from: Caliga on September 18, 2013, 05:14:41 AM
Since old people are generally completely useless, I totally believe you.... what's the problem in her specific case? :hmm:
Nothing, really. She just takes too long to understand new concepts and isn't very detail oriented, which is a problem in billing.
But I'm sure she brings in some yummy cookies & brownies.
Quote from: derspiess on September 18, 2013, 08:50:54 AM
Quote from: merithyn on September 18, 2013, 08:49:10 AM
Quote from: Caliga on September 18, 2013, 05:14:41 AM
Since old people are generally completely useless, I totally believe you.... what's the problem in her specific case? :hmm:
Nothing, really. She just takes too long to understand new concepts and isn't very detail oriented, which is a problem in billing.
But I'm sure she brings in some yummy cookies & brownies.
Oohh yeah. :mmm:
It's been zucchini bread most of the last month or so.
Quote from: merithyn on September 18, 2013, 08:50:10 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 18, 2013, 08:33:29 AM
Quote from: Tamas on September 18, 2013, 04:59:25 AM
Hells yeah if it meant decent living, so eg. I wouldn`t have to feed a family from that alone.
But financially okay is narrowly defined here...in fact, defined in such a way that I wouldn't consider it okay. -_-
The thing is, for you, it could mean a pretty good living, just not in New York City. So, the question would be one of: Do I retire somewhere else, or stay working here?
I think we might have differing ideas on what is a good living. Even if I was out in the burbs (already a strike against good living for a single person in their 20s), I'm not buying it.
Quote from: garbon on September 18, 2013, 09:36:17 AM
I think we might have differing ideas on what is a good living. Even if I was out in the burbs (already a strike against good living for a single person in their 20s), I'm not buying it.
You could buy a place on a beach in Central America.
Quote from: Tamas on September 18, 2013, 04:59:25 AM
Dguller, you must have hobbies or stuff you would like to pick up as hobbies.
I do, but what makes them enjoyable is the scarcity of time to devote to them. A life filled with nothing but pursuit of hobbies feels like an empty life to me. Maybe the right balance is achieved with a 32-hour workweek rather than 40-hour workweek, but it's not going to be a 0-hour workweek.
Hobbies are like eating fancy food at a restaurant. If you eat a BK Quad Stacker once a month, it's a treat for special occasions. If you eat it everyday, it's just a daily routine.
WTF is a "40 hour work week"?
Quote from: DGuller on September 18, 2013, 10:25:05 AM
I do, but what makes them enjoyable is the scarcity of time to devote to them. A life filled with nothing but pursuit of hobbies feels like an empty life to me. Maybe the right balance is achieved with a 32-hour workweek rather than 40-hour workweek, but it's not going to be a 0-hour workweek.
Hobbies are like eating fancy food at a restaurant. If you eat a BK Quad Stacker once a month, it's a treat for special occasions. If you eat it everyday, it's just a daily routine.
I suppose that depends on the hobbies involved.
I could easily fill all of my time taking care of my house, working on my hobbies (all 10 million of them), volunteering, and traveling.
I haven't done a 40-hour week in ages.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 18, 2013, 10:50:25 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 18, 2013, 10:47:43 AM
Quote from: derspiess on September 18, 2013, 10:46:32 AM
I haven't done a 40-hour week in ages.
slacker
no, the words are "not a lawyer".
I think he meant he works more than 40 hours... that was the joke which was lost in translation.
Most weeks I just do my government-mandated 37.5 hours. :)
Quote from: DGuller on September 18, 2013, 10:25:05 AM
Quote from: Tamas on September 18, 2013, 04:59:25 AM
Dguller, you must have hobbies or stuff you would like to pick up as hobbies.
I do, but what makes them enjoyable is the scarcity of time to devote to them. A life filled with nothing but pursuit of hobbies feels like an empty life to me. Maybe the right balance is achieved with a 32-hour workweek rather than 40-hour workweek, but it's not going to be a 0-hour workweek.
Hobbies are like eating fancy food at a restaurant. If you eat a BK Quad Stacker once a month, it's a treat for special occasions. If you eat it everyday, it's just a daily routine.
My personal ideal is something like "work 4 days a week, two months out of every three"; enough work that to be engaged and get involved, but enough time off to really enjoy it too.
A BK Quad Stacker can be special? :huh:
Quote from: Barrister on September 18, 2013, 10:58:17 AM
Most weeks I just do my government-mandated 37.5 hours. :)
We should've tried harder in 1812.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 18, 2013, 11:17:21 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 18, 2013, 10:58:17 AM
Most weeks I just do my government-mandated 37.5 hours. :)
We should've tried harder in 1812.
Why would you want to ruin BB's life?
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 18, 2013, 11:20:29 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 18, 2013, 11:17:21 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 18, 2013, 10:58:17 AM
Most weeks I just do my government-mandated 37.5 hours. :)
We should've tried harder in 1812.
Why would you want to ruin BB's life?
Have you seen how close American elections get?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 18, 2013, 12:21:21 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 18, 2013, 11:20:29 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 18, 2013, 11:17:21 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 18, 2013, 10:58:17 AM
Most weeks I just do my government-mandated 37.5 hours. :)
We should've tried harder in 1812.
Why would you want to ruin BB's life?
Have you seen how close American elections get?
Not all that relevant given that none of your parties support the sane policies we have here in Canada.
QuoteRe: If you could quit your job tomorrow and be financially okay, would you?
I'm so close to that now and it's getting so hard to work. I've kind of "hit the wall", especially after last summer's illness and having ongoing minor medical issues for the past year, I've really had it with having to be on the job, any job. Maybe something fun and creative would be a nice change that I would want to work for but otherwise I really just want to spend time doing whatever I want. Funny too because I always figured I'd be wanting to work until my mid-late 60s before retiring but I can't wait to stop. A very different frame of mind from any I've had towards working. A couple of retired neighbors said the same thing, that they just got to a point and said they're ready to call it quits and retired early. One a teacher and the other a maintenance guy for a College, both were good jobs and benefits.
Quote from: DGuller on September 17, 2013, 04:30:46 PM
It's hard to not mentally decompose once you stop working, so no.
Well I would not stop working, but working for free is alot more fun than working for your bread money.
Quote from: Valmy on September 18, 2013, 01:57:15 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 17, 2013, 04:30:46 PM
It's hard to not mentally decompose once you stop working, so no.
Well I would not stop working, but working for free is alot more fun than working for your bread money.
:yes:
Quote from: Valmy on September 18, 2013, 01:57:15 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 17, 2013, 04:30:46 PM
It's hard to not mentally decompose once you stop working, so no.
Well I would not stop working, but working for free is alot more fun than working for your bread money.
I don't think it is. Where is the motivation to work for free? That like playing poker for play money.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 18, 2013, 10:28:04 AM
WTF is a "40 hour work week"?
Yeah, I don't understand it either. :hmm:
Quote from: DGuller on September 18, 2013, 02:35:19 PM
I don't think it is. Where is the motivation to work for free? That like playing poker for play money.
It depends on what you're doing, doesn't it? If I had the opportunity to work 20 hours a week volunteering for something like the library, I'd be happy as hell.
Quote from: DGuller on September 18, 2013, 02:35:19 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 18, 2013, 01:57:15 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 17, 2013, 04:30:46 PM
It's hard to not mentally decompose once you stop working, so no.
Well I would not stop working, but working for free is alot more fun than working for your bread money.
I don't think it is. Where is the motivation to work for free? That like playing poker for play money.
You're doing what you want, can work at your own pace, and have the comfort in knowing you can always walk away from it if it starts to piss you off.
Quote from: derspiess on September 18, 2013, 02:59:32 PM
You're doing what you want, can work at your own pace, and have the comfort in knowing you can always walk away from it if it starts to piss you off.
In that case it's really a hobby then and not work. Then again, I suppose that working when you can quit is a hobby too in some sense. :hmm:
Quote from: garbon on September 18, 2013, 11:10:23 AM
A BK Quad Stacker can be special? :huh:
Apparantly for DG anyway. Not my idea of a fancy meal by any stretch.
Quote from: DGuller on September 18, 2013, 03:30:48 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 18, 2013, 02:59:32 PM
You're doing what you want, can work at your own pace, and have the comfort in knowing you can always walk away from it if it starts to piss you off.
In that case it's really a hobby then and not work. Then again, I suppose that working when you can quit is a hobby too in some sense. :hmm:
Work and hobby are not mutually exclusive.
Quote from: dps on September 18, 2013, 06:35:16 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 18, 2013, 11:10:23 AM
A BK Quad Stacker can be special? :huh:
Apparantly for DG anyway. Not my idea of a fancy meal by any stretch.
It's fancier than BK Triple Stacker.
Quote from: DGuller on September 18, 2013, 06:44:37 PM
Quote from: dps on September 18, 2013, 06:35:16 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 18, 2013, 11:10:23 AM
A BK Quad Stacker can be special? :huh:
Apparantly for DG anyway. Not my idea of a fancy meal by any stretch.
It's fancier than BK Triple Stacker.
Get the fancy ketchup
I've started going to Burger King more frequently. The one near my office has one of those cool drink mixing machines where you can get a ton of different flavors of Coke and get it with or without caffeine. It's also right across the street from the plant where Ford makes the F-250 thru F-550, which gives me a boner.
I bet you mix and match your Slurpee flavors, too. Country ass.
I don't drink Slurpees, and even if I did I'd be SOL because we don't have any 7-11s here. CIRCLE K Y'ALL
I am not convinced that it is healthy to have work be the point of your life, especially if you are just an employee instead of running your own business.
I voted for the "absoultely", because, let's face it, I don't have a lot going on now as it is.
Quote from: Barrister on September 18, 2013, 10:58:17 AM
Most weeks I just do my government-mandated 37.5 hours. :)
Then quit your bitching in TBR.
Quote from: KRonn on September 18, 2013, 12:57:06 PM
QuoteRe: If you could quit your job tomorrow and be financially okay, would you?
I'm so close to that now and it's getting so hard to work. I've kind of "hit the wall", especially after last summer's illness and having ongoing minor medical issues for the past year, I've really had it with having to be on the job, any job. Maybe something fun and creative would be a nice change that I would want to work for but otherwise I really just want to spend time doing whatever I want. Funny too because I always figured I'd be wanting to work until my mid-late 60s before retiring but I can't wait to stop. A very different frame of mind from any I've had towards working. A couple of retired neighbors said the same thing, that they just got to a point and said they're ready to call it quits and retired early. One a teacher and the other a maintenance guy for a College, both were good jobs and benefits.
Kronn, I'm in a similar frame of mind for similar and also different reasons.
I just need to come up with one last workable business idea, that I can throw myself into and that'll see me up to retirement.
Quote from: Caliga on September 18, 2013, 08:07:14 PM
I've started going to Burger King more frequently. The one near my office has one of those cool drink mixing machines where you can get a ton of different flavors of Coke and get it with or without caffeine. It's also right across the street from the plant where Ford makes the F-250 thru F-550, which gives me a boner.
I don't like that machine with the ton of flavors of Coke. I think there is a reason that regular coke is the most commonly sold version.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 18, 2013, 08:08:04 PM
I bet you mix and match your Slurpee flavors, too. Country ass.
I've never had a slurpee from 7-11. :(
There's other flavors of Coke? What are they?
Well there is often in stores both vanilla and cherry.
Then that machine: http://www.worldofcoca-cola.com/coca-colafreestyle.htm
Holy shit balls.
Yes except that it really isn't that good as the flavors aren't that great. Somewhere a guy did a review of each flavor of coke.
No scribes allowed.
I was at World of Coca-Cola once. I drank until I peed and then I drank again.
Cherry Coke is pretty good.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 19, 2013, 10:54:57 AM
Cherry Coke is pretty good.
Tastes the same as Dr. Pepper to me (which makes sense since Dr. Pepper is a cherry cola).
I thought Dr. Pepper was carbonated prune juice.
Quote from: garbon on September 19, 2013, 09:59:13 AM
Yes except that it really isn't that good as the flavors aren't that great. Somewhere a guy did a review of each flavor of coke.
Yeah, I look through all the flavors, but always end up getting Coke Zero with no additional flavoring.
Coke Zero- better than Diet Coke, not as good as water.
IIRC the Coke mixer machine thing has: regular, cherry, vanilla, orange, lemon, lime, and some kind of berry (blackberry?), all available in regular, diet, or caffeine-free diet.
Yeah, I usually get that or just regular in diet and caffeine-free.
Quote from: Caliga on September 19, 2013, 11:14:18 AM
Yeah, I usually get that or just regular in diet and caffeine-free.
I have been particular recently for Pepsi Max Cherry :Embarrass:
Quote from: Caliga on September 19, 2013, 11:10:41 AM
IIRC the Coke mixer machine thing has: regular, cherry, vanilla, orange, lemon, lime, and some kind of berry (blackberry?), all available in regular, diet, or caffeine-free diet.
Or you could just look at my link where it points out it is raspberry. :P
Quote from: DGuller on September 18, 2013, 02:35:19 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 18, 2013, 01:57:15 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 17, 2013, 04:30:46 PM
It's hard to not mentally decompose once you stop working, so no.
Well I would not stop working, but working for free is alot more fun than working for your bread money.
I don't think it is. Where is the motivation to work for free? That like playing poker for play money.
That is a very mercenary view.
I do a lot of work for free. I think I have a professional and ethical obligation to do so. I also think that while not everyone in society has a similar professional obligation, those that are able, do have an ethical obligation to volunteer (work for free).
The notion of charity is a stealth campaign of subversion directed by conservatives against the State.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 19, 2013, 12:32:01 PM
The notion of charity is a stealth campaign of subversion directed by conservatives against the State.
Stop making it sound so awesome!
:D
Quote from: Ideologue on September 19, 2013, 12:32:01 PM
The notion of charity is a stealth campaign of subversion directed by conservatives against the State.
Charity is a different concept. It is giving money in lieu of volunteering labour. I do both but I think my volunteer work is more important.
edit: and in the context of this thread volunteering is certainly more rewarding than simply writing a cheque.
Quote from: Caliga on September 19, 2013, 10:56:07 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 19, 2013, 10:54:57 AM
Cherry Coke is pretty good.
Tastes the same as Dr. Pepper to me (which makes sense since Dr. Pepper is a cherry cola).
Cherry Dr Pepper is the bomb.
If you drink more than 12 Diet Dr. Peppers in a day, you get chemical burns.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 19, 2013, 08:10:31 PM
If you drink more than 12 Diet Dr. Peppers in a day, you get chemical burns.
That explains those flash burns on my genitals.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 19, 2013, 08:10:31 PM
If you drink more than 12 Diet Dr. Peppers in a day, you get chemical burns.
Who the fuck would drink 12 in a day?
Quote from: katmai on September 19, 2013, 08:19:28 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 19, 2013, 08:10:31 PM
If you drink more than 12 Diet Dr. Peppers in a day, you get chemical burns.
Who the fuck would drink 12 in a day?
I think we all know the answer.
Quote from: katmai on September 19, 2013, 08:19:28 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 19, 2013, 08:10:31 PM
If you drink more than 12 Diet Dr. Peppers in a day, you get chemical burns.
Who the fuck would drink 12 in a day?
The guy who knows that it causes chemical burns, maybe? :hmm:
And genital flash burns. But I love my diet Dr. Pepper. It hurts so good.
Quote from: merithyn on September 19, 2013, 08:58:46 PM
Quote from: katmai on September 19, 2013, 08:19:28 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 19, 2013, 08:10:31 PM
If you drink more than 12 Diet Dr. Peppers in a day, you get chemical burns.
Who the fuck would drink 12 in a day?
The guy who knows that it causes chemical burns, maybe? :hmm:
:D I wonder if Ide hydrates with soda.
I drank some water a couple of days ago because I didn't feel like going to the store right then.
Ok, Meri.
What does OK mean?"
I'm okay, you're okay.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 24, 2013, 03:03:57 AM
Ok, Meri.
What does OK mean?"
QuoteRead the OP before voting to see what "financially okay" means.
:hmm:
Which really just means "OK as in not really okay". :(
Quote from: garbon on September 24, 2013, 12:01:33 PM
Which really just means "OK as in not really okay". :(
That's not true, actually. You
could be okay on that amount. It would pay the bills and give you a bit left over if you were careful and intelligent in how you spent your money.
But no, it's not an excessive amount. You would definitely have to be careful with your spending.
Quote from: merithyn on September 24, 2013, 12:34:09 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 24, 2013, 12:01:33 PM
Which really just means "OK as in not really okay". :(
That's not true, actually. You could be okay on that amount. It would pay the bills and give you a bit left over if you were careful and intelligent in how you spent your money.
But no, it's not an excessive amount. You would definitely have to be careful with your spending.
No, I couldn't. Just with current and due expenses, I'd hit quite a crunch and would need to radically revise almost everything about my life. I don't consider that "okay" though yes, it is certainly the case that I could still continue to live.
Quote from: garbon on September 24, 2013, 12:39:57 PM
Quote from: merithyn on September 24, 2013, 12:34:09 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 24, 2013, 12:01:33 PM
Which really just means "OK as in not really okay". :(
That's not true, actually. You could be okay on that amount. It would pay the bills and give you a bit left over if you were careful and intelligent in how you spent your money.
But no, it's not an excessive amount. You would definitely have to be careful with your spending.
No, I couldn't. Just with current and due expenses, I'd hit quite a crunch and would need to radically revise almost everything about my life. I don't consider that "okay" though yes, it is certainly the case that I could still continue to live.
And that's why you voted no. For me, I could see doing so with no real problem.
Four times poverty line is twice the median income here. Absolutely.
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.
Yeah, but is your job full of a primordial struggle to reach a top that isn't there? Mine isn't. I doubt most people's are.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 24, 2013, 06:34:42 PM
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.
Not me. If I could stop working and be comfortable I would do it in a heartbeat. I don't know that Meri's definition of OK is enough, but it would be close if I didn't have my kids to worry about.
Quote from: sbr on September 24, 2013, 06:40:28 PM
Not me. If I could stop working and be comfortable I would do it in a heartbeat. I don't know that Meri's definition of OK is enough, but it would be close if I didn't have my kids to worry about.
Yeah, if I was single I am not sure I would still be doing what I do. The temptation would be too great to find another lower paying job with a lot less stress. Or just give it all up, sell my properties and just live on the proceeds of accumlated savings and investments.
But since its not just me I have to think of I earn for others.
That's the other thing. I didn't understand Meri's hypothetical to involve a promise to never work again.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 24, 2013, 06:43:22 PM
That's the other thing. I didn't understand Meri's hypothetical to involve a promise to never work again.
Quote from: merithyn on September 17, 2013, 01:37:28 PM
Quote from: Jacob on September 17, 2013, 01:35:41 PM
If the question is - would you take $40K - $60K/year (depending on how we define poverty line; this could also apply to an individual) and not earn any other income for the rest of your life, then no.
This
To me, then the hypothetical simply comes down to whether or not you currently make less (or around) than 4 times poverty in your country. And maybe with a modifier of if you are at a stage in your career/life that you aren't necessarily trying to increase your yearly income.
Oh, I missed that.
I'd still take it, I guess. A guaranteed income like that has a lot of value.
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.
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?
Quote from: Jacob on September 24, 2013, 06:56:18 PM
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.
:yes:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 24, 2013, 06:34:42 PM
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.
Quote from: Iormlund on September 25, 2013, 05:30:26 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 24, 2013, 06:34:42 PM
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.
Quote from: garbon on September 25, 2013, 08:01:58 AM
Quote from: Iormlund on September 25, 2013, 05:30:26 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 24, 2013, 06:34:42 PM
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.
Idle rich beats idle poor.
Under the circumstances described, I don't think anyone could confuse them for the idle rich. ;)
Quote from: merithyn on September 25, 2013, 10:07:38 AM
Under the circumstances described, I don't think anyone could confuse them for the idle rich. ;)
But still idle.
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.
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.
Quote from: garbon on September 25, 2013, 10:11:11 AM
Quote from: merithyn on September 25, 2013, 10:07:38 AM
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. :)
Quote from: merithyn on September 25, 2013, 02:18:45 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 25, 2013, 10:11:11 AM
Quote from: merithyn on September 25, 2013, 10:07:38 AM
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. :(
Quote from: garbon on September 25, 2013, 02:26:54 PM
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.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 25, 2013, 02:34:03 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 25, 2013, 02:26:54 PM
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.
Like Philadelphia, a land of people who spend their time wishing they were in NYC?
Quote from: garbon on September 25, 2013, 03:26:23 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 25, 2013, 02:34:03 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 25, 2013, 02:26:54 PM
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.
Like Philadelphia, a land of people who spend their time wishing they were in NYC?
Why would you wish to be in NYC? :x
Quote from: DGuller on September 25, 2013, 03:41:58 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 25, 2013, 03:26:23 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 25, 2013, 02:34:03 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 25, 2013, 02:26:54 PM
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.
Like Philadelphia, a land of people who spend their time wishing they were in NYC?
Why would you wish to be in NYC? :x
:huh:
Quote from: garbon on September 25, 2013, 03:26:23 PM
Like Philadelphia, a land of people who spend their time wishing they were in NYC?
:blink:
I challenge you to make that observation aloud in Center City Philadelphia and not get all of your teeth knocked out. :)
Quote from: Caliga on September 25, 2013, 03:44:50 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 25, 2013, 03:26:23 PM
Like Philadelphia, a land of people who spend their time wishing they were in NYC?
:blink:
I challenge you to make that observation aloud in Center City Philadelphia and not get all of your teeth knocked out. :)
Truth hurts?
Quote from: garbon on September 25, 2013, 03:26:23 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 25, 2013, 02:34:03 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 25, 2013, 02:26:54 PM
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.
Like Philadelphia, a land of people who spend their time wishing they were in NYC?
You should live on the top of a hill.
Ewww, Filthadelphia.
Some aspects of downtown are nice. Museums and touristy spots rock, and some very nice restaurants. Don't think I'd want to live there to work, though.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 25, 2013, 03:47:13 PM
Ewww, Filthadelphia.
Some aspects of downtown are nice. Museums and touristy spots rock, and some very nice restaurants. Don't think I'd want to live there to work, though.
I'm not trying to say Philly is better than NYC. I have no opinion on that really. But I'm quite sure that your typical Philadelphian does NOT 'spend their time wishing they were in NYC'. :contract:
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 25, 2013, 03:44:23 PM
:huh:
NYC is a place where you get the least quality of life for the most amount of money. Unless you really crave its social scene, I really see no compelling reason for living there.
Quote from: DGuller on September 25, 2013, 03:50:22 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 25, 2013, 03:44:23 PM
:huh:
NYC is a place where you get the least quality of life for the most amount of money. Unless you really crave its social scene, I really see no compelling reason for living there.
Why do you think there is a low quality of life there? When I think of NYC I think of the all the amazing things I could do there that I couldnt do here - and I live in a pretty amazing place. :)
Maybe he is equating cost of living with quality of life?
Quote from: Caliga on September 25, 2013, 03:44:50 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 25, 2013, 03:26:23 PM
Like Philadelphia, a land of people who spend their time wishing they were in NYC?
:blink:
I challenge you to make that observation aloud in Center City Philadelphia and not get all of your teeth knocked out. :)
It is in center city that I've heard the view expressed.
Also, Cal, I think there is a difference as the people I interact with are not the life long Philadelphians but one's who have moved there at some point and will likely move away.
That's another thing that isn't the same for everyone, nor should it be. Also depending on perspective and viewpoint.
A thousand years ago nobody's idea of being ok or having a good quality of life included indoor plumbing or electricity. What you know informs what you want, and so does personal preference.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 25, 2013, 03:52:21 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 25, 2013, 03:50:22 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 25, 2013, 03:44:23 PM
:huh:
NYC is a place where you get the least quality of life for the most amount of money. Unless you really crave its social scene, I really see no compelling reason for living there.
Why do you think there is a low quality of life there? When I think of NYC I think of the all the amazing things I could do there that I couldnt do here - and I live in a pretty amazing place. :)
Yeah but DG has pretty narrow interests and recall that he dislikes travel as he thinks that consists of just checking off things that you've seen.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 25, 2013, 03:52:21 PM
Why do you think there is a low quality of life there?
Personal experience. It's hard to describe, because it's really a collection of many little things that grate on you once you know that other places have it better. Some of it is just an inevitable consequence of high population density, but many are a result of piss-poor governance.
QuoteWhen I think of NYC I think of the all the amazing things I could do there that I couldnt do here - and I live in a pretty amazing place. :)
Because you're thinking like a tourist, not like a potential resident.
Quote from: DGuller on September 25, 2013, 04:04:00 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 25, 2013, 03:52:21 PM
Why do you think there is a low quality of life there?
Personal experience. It's hard to describe, because it's really a collection of many little things that grate on you once you know that other places have it better. Some of it is just an inevitable consequence of high population density, but many are a result of piss-poor governance.
QuoteWhen I think of NYC I think of the all the amazing things I could do there that I couldnt do here - and I live in a pretty amazing place. :)
Because you're thinking like a tourist, not like a potential resident.
And as a potential resident you lose all interests? :unsure:
Also, you voluntarily live in NJ, so I shall advise that your personal experience should be taken with a salt lick.
Quote from: garbon on September 25, 2013, 04:09:17 PM
And as a potential resident you lose all interests? :unsure:
No, but some of the interests are based on novelty, which works for tourists, but quickly bores the locals.
QuoteAlso, you voluntarily live in NJ, so I shall advise that your personal experience should be taken with a salt lick.
:yawn: That wasn't clever even the first 100 times. I don't know where NJ stacks up in the big picture, but in general it's a much nicer place to live in, and just a much nicer place, than NYC.
There's a lot of really nice space in the Jersey heartland, like all along 70 and below 195...it's when you start winding up on the Delaware River side from Wilmington all the way up to below Trenton, or near Newark that it starts to become "New Joisey".
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 25, 2013, 04:20:39 PM
There's a lot of really nice space in the Jersey heartland, like all along 70 and below 195...it's when you start winding up on the Delaware River side from Wilmington all the way up to below Trenton, or near Newark that it starts to become "New Joisey".
:yes: Western and Southern New Jersey are particularly nice places to live in, but IMO even the northeastern parts which are insanely expensive and horribly congested are still preferable to what's there across the river.
Quote from: DGuller on September 25, 2013, 04:04:00 PM
Because you're thinking like a tourist, not like a potential resident.
Naw, I would be happy to live there. It would take all of two seconds to convince my wife to move. The time it would take me to say "we are moving to NYC"
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 25, 2013, 11:09:30 AM
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.
Thanks to the miracle of crystal meth the idle poor also have the means to do some serious damage themselves and others.
In any event, no, I wouldn't quit my job for a guaranteed $45,000 per year. I like my job. :bowler:
Quote from: DGuller on September 25, 2013, 04:25:17 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 25, 2013, 04:20:39 PM
There's a lot of really nice space in the Jersey heartland, like all along 70 and below 195...it's when you start winding up on the Delaware River side from Wilmington all the way up to below Trenton, or near Newark that it starts to become "New Joisey".
:yes: Western and Southern New Jersey are particularly nice places to live in, but IMO even the northeastern parts which are insanely expensive and horribly congested are still preferable to what's there across the river.
You got the greater Baltimore area to agree with you. Besides, are you trying to claim you live in one of the nice parts of Jersey?
Quote from: garbon on September 25, 2013, 05:48:45 PM
Besides, are you trying to claim you live in one of the nice parts of Jersey?
:huh: No, I live right across the river, though I would like to move westward sometime in the future. It's still a much better deal than NYC.
Quote from: DGuller on September 25, 2013, 06:24:41 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 25, 2013, 05:48:45 PM
Besides, are you trying to claim you live in one of the nice parts of Jersey?
:huh: No, I live right across the river, though I would like to move westward sometime in the future. It's still a much better deal than NYC.
For you, perhaps. :)
I can't think of anything I'd want to live in NYC for. Maybe a job, but with the cost of living it would have to be a damn fine job.
Quote from: Maximus on September 25, 2013, 07:07:18 PM
I can't think of anything I'd want to live in NYC for. Maybe a job, but with the cost of living it would have to be a damn fine job.
Again we need to consider where you did choose to live to provide some context to whether your judgment should be accepted about such things.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 25, 2013, 07:27:17 PM
Quote from: Maximus on September 25, 2013, 07:07:18 PM
I can't think of anything I'd want to live in NYC for. Maybe a job, but with the cost of living it would have to be a damn fine job.
Again we need to consider where you did choose to live to provide some context to whether your judgment should be accepted about such things.
You're right. The right woman would probably do it too.
Are you sure you're Jewish DG? :hmm:
Quote from: Maximus on September 25, 2013, 07:07:18 PM
I can't think of anything I'd want to live in NYC for. Maybe a job, but with the cost of living it would have to be a damn fine job.
Well, of course. Moving to NYC without decent money or salary is probably a bad idea.
*looks askance at his soon to be returning sibling*
I would consider New York if I made a lot more money and it got a lot less snow.
I'm actually dreading winter as the 3 ones I've had so far were pretty mild / when the one really big storm that happened, I was already in Palm Springs.
Quote from: DGuller on September 25, 2013, 07:44:46 PM
Why do you ask?
A Jew that doesn't want to live in NYC.
Because NYC sucks? I knew it sucked, and I didn't even remember the snow. Yeah, shithole.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 25, 2013, 08:10:19 PM
Because NYC sucks? I knew it sucked, and I didn't even remember the snow. Yeah, shithole.
:D
Couldn't get me to live in NYC*
But my brother loves it.
*Of course couldn't get me to live anywhere in east coast.
It is the Least Coast. :(
Dguller's place is fine. I'm told it's very nice.
:unsure:
Quote from: Razgovory on September 25, 2013, 08:49:28 PM
Dguller's place is fine. I'm told it's very nice.
:unsure:
I'll be right back, I need to go get a restraining order.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 25, 2013, 09:51:32 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 25, 2013, 09:16:09 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 25, 2013, 09:09:56 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 25, 2013, 08:49:28 PM
Dguller's place is fine. I'm told it's very nice.
:unsure:
Sucks to be you, bro.
It's not like you live that far away.
Ugh, don't remind me.
Quote from: DGuller on September 25, 2013, 09:17:11 PM
I'll be right back, I need to go get a restraining order.
Don't worry, your secret is safe with me, D. Guller.
:unsure: How do you know my name? :mad:
Quote from: DGuller on September 25, 2013, 10:13:29 PM
:unsure: How do you know my name? :mad:
Is that a joke?
Not yet. I can find out if you like.
I don't really know why that would matter either way.
Quote from: garbon on September 25, 2013, 10:39:43 PM
I don't really know why that would matter either way.
It wouldn't. You've never been interesting enough to learn more about.
Phew.
Quote from: merithyn on September 17, 2013, 01:22:52 PM
When I say "financially okay", I don't mean that you've won the lottery or that you get a full-pay retirement package. I mean that you would be pulling in about 4 times the poverty line and would stay at that rate until you died.
Would you leave your job?
I was prepared to answer that question last Tuesday. It would have been "yes". I would have sold everything I own, moved with my ex in Montreal, be a stay at home guy and play silly non strategic games all day long.
But since I've gotten a tiny bit better now, and since there's a possible diagnostic and a possible solution down the line... That'd be no. I like my life, I like what I'm doing, and I know I can never get enough, so I'm working. Slowly, not as much as before, but I'm coming back to the land of the living (yes, I am a drama queen sometimes :P but it really feels that way) and I want again to work, and make things work.