To think that if you’re in a position of choice, you should always choose affluence?

@MyLimeGuide , I've got a little Buddha outside and he's a cute little china guy who imparts serenity and wisdom to all in his little sphere of influence . Definitely more wise than your normal human :)

What is affluence ? A state of having a lot of money

choosing sufficient or more seems better to me - that gives you more options of work life balance or choice of partner.

Money doesn’t give happiness although lack of money gives unhappiness. You need enough to avoid being poor , to protect yourself but you don’t need affluence. You need sufficient and a happy life. Chasing more money over happiness seems daft to me

edit - one lady’s comfort is another’s pointless excess

edit 2 and yet those with least give more to charity as a share of their income - so rich people could give more but they tend to be the exception

This is next level wafty navel gazing nonsense.

Who are these people?

But some jobs arent just neutral they are positively harmful. Eg. If you work for a tabacco company or a landlord who treats their tenants badly or are a manager in a business that pays exploitative low wages, or a private equity business stripping assets, or a lawyer advising on tax loopholes or how to avoid liability for pollution.
Donating a tenner a month to Macmillan doesn't cancel out the harms from the day job.

That's why I don't worship wealth or think wealthy people are better.

Sorry not sure I understand your question. We have a ‘comfortable’ life but spend money on what is best for us, perhaps not on what others like to spend on eg holidays and fancy cars.

So for your first example, the problem likely would be that the person doesn't consider the work meaningful (enough), even if others might. Say someone who leaves their corporate role in some top bank to be one of the highest paid people in a huge charity like Oxfam.

For your second example, people often don't want to accept help because they believe it will come with undesirable conditions or obligations of some kind.

I don't know anyone of that mindset but if you have heard of them and they exist then i think they are being unreasonable! People suffer for religion etc maybe these people you speak of are doing it for some sort of spiritual reason??

Or because they have to juggle.

I.e. jobs around childcare or other caring responsibilities.

I don't think the OP has really thought this through

Assuming they're not goady or a journo

What would Jesus do?

or maybe they are not embarrassed at all, but don't want to be smug or show off and try to downplay it in front of others, while they are spraying luxury champagne all over their luxury holiday to celebrate their success privately 😂

I agree.

To give a concrete example, I think few people are in the position of choosing between a contract arms manufacturer in the Congo for £500k vs being an AIDS orphan charity volunteer for free.

But probably quite a few could choose to either study accounting at uni or English, or date a staid accountant vs a romantic poet. I wasn't completely materialistic in my dating choices and could have dated some higher earners than my eventual DH, but I did have a mental floor and wouldn't have dated someone with no income/prospects whatsoever no matter how charming his poetry. And I find my own job fairly enjoyable and ethically non-problematic but I only work there because they pay me well.

I think there are a lot of options that are seen as very boring but which lead to a comfortable life, it's not just ones that are in-your-face evil.

In that case is it less about those who romanticise the struggle (not to say this doesn't happen, but I haven't ever encountered it) and more about people being embarrassed by success? Isn't that just a British thing? To be self deprecating?

WTF I'm so confused. No one does what you are saying. You even admit you don't really have any examples.

If both jobs are healthy and ethical and good conditions etc and one pays more, people will take the one that pays more.

In the real world though that just doesnt really happen - Higher paying jobs come with longer hours, or more stress, or loads of responsibility, or financial accountability, or risk of death, or loads of travel away, or poor working conditions etc etc. that's usually why they come with a higher salary.

What you are saying is just utter bollocks.

We can all easily pretend that adversity has no impact on choice when we come from a certain position within society and just don’t get it.

Plenty of people who’ve bought run down cortijos (stone shacks) in the middle of nowhere in Spain, with dreams of chatting to the local olive farmers. Thinking they’ll be able to pick up bits of work to pay their outgoings. Then reality bites.

@TheTaupeMoose how many people have you encountered that, given options - all of which have been 'healthy and ethical' - have deliberately chosen the one that is less stable and comfortable so that they can 'romanticise their struggle'?

I'm really struggling to think of any examples and it doesn't strike me as something that happens often.

ETA: If you've posted this because of a specific scenario that you want a second opinion on, you'd probably be better posting about the actual scenario.

@TheTaupeMoose

OK: again, though, there's too many parameters to give a yes/no answer.

What's the financial delta between the high and low jobs?
What do you need the money for?
How easy is it to make the additional money?
What's the upside of having less money (better work life balance etc).

If the question is: should I always take a higher-paying job, regardless of other factors, then the answer is obviously no. A job paying an extra £5k pa for horrible people with horrible hours is probably not going to be superior to a lower-paid job with relaxed hours, nice people and perks.

But then if you change the parameters that changes the answers. If the same job (horrible people) is offering extra £25k pa then you're into a slightly different league and its harder to say no. Particularly if you're a single breadwinner who has to make a certain amount of money per year to make your outgoings. It will depend on how old you are, whether you're married or not, whether you have kids, where you live, when you want to retire, how much savings you have etc etc.

This is why it's impossible to answer that question unless it's phrased in a more concrete way.

I don’t know anyone who thinks struggle is noble.

But I’ve observed people who are so comfortable and affluent (both relative terms, of course) they romanticise struggle, e.g. dream about or actually chuck it all in to live off grid. And then realise the day-to-day grind and worry wears you down - or realise too late they didn’t factor in poor health/disability/fragile older age. But I guess they may argue a life without struggle can be quite boring?

And in societies where there’s extreme and ingrained inequality, most sensitive people will feel awkward being able to afford things they don’t really need (yet moan about higher taxes) while others are without shelter, food or sleep: to the point they die prematurely of despair, feeling unloved or discarded.

I'm not sure it's true at all that someone else would do the same job and make the same amount of difference. Not with jobs that require a lot of niche skills and drive.

But I'm mulling over the options. I just think the world is a fat better place because of all the brilliant people who don't chase money alone. And would be a far darker and more miserable place if we were all avaricious