Although I wish I was writing about how I want everyone to start riding their bicycles to work, walking to the store two blocks down, trading in their 2011 Honda Pilot for a 1995 Civic DX, or only running their A/C when the inside temperature in the house is above 90 degrees; this is not the type of Green I am making.
Jobs. I have one. I wish I didn't.
Here is the pole.
1) Is it better to have a job that you enjoy 50% of the time but are happy about what the money you make from the job affords you
2) Is it better to have a job that you enjoy 90% of the time but can't afford all of the things you would like
3) Is it better to have no job and enjoy everything in life because all you have is free and you are more likely to give freely in return because of your poverty
While I do make both kinds of green mentioned, I share your conundrum about work. I think I'm about to be long-winded. For the poll:
ReplyDelete1) This is where I am. Even "happy about the money I make," because it is finally above the poverty line, I certainly can't afford all the things I'd like, but my job gives me great people to work with plus good opportunities. It also removes stress. Security stress makes me grimly unhappy, so even when my job makes me unhappy, I can still view it as happier than my last periods of unemployment. I accept that trade-off.
2) Had this job at the preschool. Best job EVER in terms of satisfaction. But money buys opportunities down the road, and if you can't save, you can't take those opportunities when they come. So you have to accept the trade-off of present satisfaction for future opportunity. If you do, then go with #2.
3) Sounds like Alexander Supertramp or more notable peripatetics. This works until you get sick or hurt and stop enjoying everything in life. Moreover, it never works when you have a relationship with parents such as ours, because they won't allow you to live in (what they view as) want. And what they probably would also view as irresponsibility and sloth if chosen as a lifestyle. Also, if you don't give freely when you have extra, it's unlikely that you will give freely when you have nothing.
If happiness is the measure of "better" - which sounds like the scale you have in mind - then none are inherently better or worse. The problem with happiness is that we view it as conditional, as the result of being satisfied all the time, or at least having more satisfaction than dissatisfaction. Maybe we have confirmation bias, so that even if we are more often satisfied, every instance of dissatisfaction stings disproportionately, making us remember ourselves as unhappy; each sting of dissatisfaction counts more than every stroke of satisfaction. In which case, happiness or unhappiness is the result of how you view the satisfaction of your appetites, regardless of your actual circumstances.
In which case, how can you be both happy and ambitious? Ambition is hunger; hunger is dissatisfaction. And equally enigmatic, how do you adopt an idea of happiness that isn't conditional?
Billi,
ReplyDeleteI certainly like your summary; no one can be both happy and ambitious. I am fighting to find the balance in living my life, and living my job. Being on call 24/7 every other week is a hard lifestyle when you live at your job and you sacrifice things you love for that. A work shop, being with family every weekend, being able to go do things on your day off.
I would be much more content if I had one week on call and two weeks off. That arrangement would be much more satisfying.
I am working this job as a stepping stone for my life. Learning as many valuable skills of home repair and service, and also learning about people. It also serves me as a means. It is a steady reliable source of income that is easier to plan around even when it is not enjoyable.
I know God brought me to this job with a plan or a purpose. Things wouldn't have kept working out with such great timing if there wasn't something beyond my sight of mind.