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

[TheTaupeMoose]

If you can choose comfort, ease, security and options, why wouldn’t you? Struggle isn’t noble. Rich is just better. AIBU to say that given the choice, choosing affluence every time just makes sense?

They definitely took it to the extreme! I just meant more in everyday terms, like people who downplay wanting financial stability because it’s seen as “materialistic.” Theres still a weird guilt around choosing comfort, even when it’s completely reasonable.

I am not sure that would qualify as "struggling" though

In your first example, presumably they feel that the work is less worthwhile than what they're doing. You don't agree with them, but that doesn't mean they're choosing to have less money. It's more complicated than that.

In your second example, they're either avoiding the strings that come with that or feeling guilty about not pulling their weight or not being fair.

In both cases the choice is not as straightforward as you are suggesting. A straightforward choice would be if I was offered more money to do my same job in the same place with the same employer and I turned it down. No one does that.

I'm mulling this over at the moment as I have 2 job offers on the table. One for a £100k job with scope to earn double in time. With with a £60k job and realistically progression only up to £80k

The £60k job could see me making a genuine difference to others though. The £100k+ one will just make me rich (and make other people richer)

I guess £60k doesn't mean struggle but it will mean making difficult budgeting choices at times and it will be difficult to help my children with university and a deposit.

The lower paid job also comes with better working conditions and much better sick pay. So realistically is more sustainable.

Where's the tipping point between comfort and selfishness ?
If everyone chose wealth over other values the world would be a much darker place

Depends on the scenario.

I left a stressful, high paying job for a less stressful, lower paying job. I have to budget better, but I'm not grumpy all the time anymore so on balance my quality of life has improved.

I wouldn't accept a job that was morally dubious e.g. working for a tobacco or gambling company as it wouldn't align with my values, even if the pay was better.

I can think of loads more scenarios where choosing 'wealth' doesn't make more sense.

What's the definition of affluence, and what's the counterfactual? Unless you can define these more clearly this is gibberish.

For example:

Is it sensible to choose a paid job over a life on welfare? Yes obviously.

Is it sensible to choose a marriage to a fantastically wealthy but unkind and controlling man over working to support your children yourself? Probably not.

You have to provide more clarity on what the actual choices are.

Yeah I see what you mean. There’s a difference between choosing wealth at all costs and choosing long-term security or sustainability. I don’t think comfort automatically equals selfishness but I agree, values and purpose matter too. It’s probably about alignment rather than just income.

Can you describe to me when people have this choice? I’m lost.

There are many ways to give back.

Take the best paid job, you might help a lot less people, not make a difference, but give to local causes - and for those you will make a difference, you can volunteer, give time, help. The other job will recruit someone else and make the same difference anyway?

Family comes first, then you do what you can, it doesn't have to mean you put yourself last.

There's an element of selfishness in taking the best paid positions, that you work for anyway!, but it doesn't mean your life has to be selfish.

I probably should’ve defined it better. By affluence, I just meant choosing financial stability and comfort when both options are healthy and ethical. Not about extreme trade-offs, like marrying for money or avoiding work, just about not romanticising struggle when a more secure path is available.

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

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.

@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.

@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.

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.

It’s true that some people do romanticise struggle from a place of comfort and others feel guilt about having more. I guess what I meant is that there’s space between guilt and greed, where we can value stability without shame. Your point about boredom and inequality adds an important layer though; comfort without empathy can become complacency.

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.

I agree it’s impossible to give a universal answer because everyone’s circumstances and priorities are different. I wasn’t really trying to make it a yes/no question so much as a reflection on mindset. Some people seem to feel guilty for choosing the more comfortable or financially secure route, as if “struggle” is more virtuous. I just think there’s nothing wrong with valuing ease and stability when you can, but you’re right, context always matters.

It’s not something I think happens constantly, more just an attitude I’ve noticed here and there. Things like people feeling guilty for choosing easier or better-paid options or talking down success as if comfort means complacency. I wasn’t referring to anyone specific, just thinking about how sometimes we glorify the grind more than we need to.

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.

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?

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.

Yes, I think embarrassment around success probably plays a big part. There’s definitely a cultural thing here around toning yourself down or pretending not to care about comfort or ambition too much. Maybe it’s less romanticising struggle and more downplaying success to stay relatable.

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 😂

What would Jesus do?