Social Question

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

Would you take pay over pleasure or the other way around?

Asked by Hypocrisy_Central (26834points) September 25th, 2014

You find a job that fits you like a glove, you love the people you work with, the hours are great, you are excited to get up and go to it, five hours there seem like only an hour, etc. but it only pays $9.25 hr., would you take that over a job you could do where you don’t particularly like your coworkers, the hours are not the greatest, the work is unappealing to you, being there 30 minutes feels like you have been there 4 hours, you want to leave soon after you clock in, etc. but the job as complete benefits and pays $42 hr. Which way would you go, after the pleasure or the pay?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

15 Answers

trailsillustrated's avatar

The pay. Pleasure is for off work hours. Work to live, not live to work.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

At this point in my life I could go for the pleasant job, but it would really depend on how bad the high paying job was.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

Happy medians do exist but it generally takes hard work and a lot of luck. I’d say I’m there. I enjoy what I do and get a decent salary to do it. In the end it takes so much cash to even participate in the “American dream” or wherever you live that the pay has got to come first. Few of us get to enjoy that work.

gondwanalon's avatar

My job is a high pressure sweat shop with crazy hours and a long commute and pays $40/hour. I’ve been working there for 19 years. I can’t imagine having a job that I liked. But now I’d like to give it a try for minimum wage.

AshLeigh's avatar

Right now, I’m in a good place. I love my job, it pays more than my last job (hourly plus tips is always nice) my coworkers kick ass, and the hours are great. Working in the morning frees up my entire day for other things.
I wouldn’t leave this job for a job I hated, even if it did pay a lot better. My happiness is more valuable than that.

Haleth's avatar

Honestly, I think one of the great struggles of modern life is finding a job that does both.

I’ve already done the fun happy job for low pay. It would be amazing to be paid $42 per hour. I can’t even imagine what life would be like at that salary. That would, like, triple my salary, it would be like winning the lottery.

Then again, I’m currently in my 20s and doing work I really care about. Down the road, chances are I will be paid more to work in this field at a higher level.

Earthbound_Misfit's avatar

Pleasure over pay is my preference. However, the final decision would depend on whether I could survive financially on the pay. As long as I can pay the bills and put food on the table, quality of life is more important than money. If I couldn’t pay the bills and feed the family, I’d have to settle for pay over pleasure.

Here2_4's avatar

I am currently in the kind of job which pays partially in stress balance. Meaning I don’t wear my stomach lining out for a few dollars more. If there was a job available to me,which paid several times more, I would consider taking it for a while, just to get a financial comfort zone, then ditch it to do something more to my liking.
I don’t foresee that.happening.

stanleybmanly's avatar

It boils down to necessity. Of course the nightmare scenario is the one increasingly unavoidable—- the soul deadening 9.25 an hour job which you despise but cannot evade.

hearkat's avatar

In your example, the pay differential of >400% is pretty extreme, and I think that most people would choose the higher pay. Where I live, one needs to earn nearly that much to live an independent but modest middle-class lifestyle if they are single.

The real question is what amount of pay differential makes the soul-crushing job more beneficial than the rewarding career? Where does one draw that line? Another variable is where one is along the career and life timeline – once someone has bought a home and has decent equity and the kids are grown and out of the house, they can accept lower pay for lower stress more easily than a single parent can.

crissy14's avatar

The money pit. Many people fall for this life scheme. People are very materialistic, including myself. Sorry but, I’m choosing the money. I could get paid to watch TV at minimum wage but I would ONLY be happy WHILE at the job. I couldn’t afford anything else.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@hearkat In your example, the pay differential of >400% is pretty extreme, and I think that most people would choose the higher pay
I have known people not to take higher paying because it came with a hellish 1 ½+ commute to the Bay Area, tough stressful hours, etc. they say they wanted something that would not leave them drained. Be it they were just less ambitious, lazier, or simply wanted peace of mind that no cash can buy, I don’t know.

hearkat's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central – the pay differential was that extreme and they declined it? If it were closer, the cost in commuting and time spent could easily make it not worth it; but with the OP numbers you chose, $87,360/year with that commute still beats $19,240/year with a 10-minute commute for most people.

trailsillustrated's avatar

My job is pretty good but for reasons I can’t figure out I never feel like going . But the release from financial worries is just the best. That in itself sets me free.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@hearkat If it were closer, the cost in commuting and time spent could easily make it not worth it; but with the OP numbers you chose, $87,360/year with that commute still beats $19,240/year with a 10-minute commute for most people.
As said, why they won’t do it is a mystery. I guess with some people they have lower ambition, maybe they are lazier, or they don’t care much for having the latest gadget or creature comfort, and money is not that good of a motivator.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther