Would you rather have a life of comfortable luxury or a life of significance

[Bang]

Give me the money, and i can fund the ideas that will make me significant.

~Bang

[Spaceman Spiff]

Just now, Bang said:

Give me the money, and i can fund the ideas that will make me significant.

~Bang

 

You're assuming a lot there, Bang.

 

Thems just jokes.

[Forehead]

I'm going option 1 without a doubt. Option two really depends...I have a big enough heart that if I could discover the cure for cancer, but somehow not benefit, something like that would make me consider option two.  But being a revered author/painter/etc. after I'm dead?  I'm dead, what good does that do me?  I'd rather live comfortable and set up my kids/grandkids, etc.

[GhostofSparta]

#1

 

My wife and I are already in our 30's and haven't changed our minds about not having kids. I'd rather her and I have the money. Spend our prime travelling and helping others without having to worry about jobs. Put our nieces and nephews through college. When we're dead, we'll have nieces and nephews to give our money to. Unless it's something earth-changing (cure for some kind of cancer, develop a fuel source that completely halts climate change, etc.), I really don't care about whether I fade into obscurity after my death. Hell, that's been the fate of damn near 100% of all humanity to have ever existed.

 

Rather be able to do some small scale help with family and local charities that $2mil/year (plus volunteer time) could help than have some painting that's traded among the super rich a decade after my death.

[DM72]

I'll take the money.

[Going Commando]

A life of significance, no question.  I would absolutely rather create something of genius or do important work than get rich and/or powerful.

[Going Commando]

How about this guy?  He's not even famous, but talk about a life well lived: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Punke

[Fan since a Fetus]

As someone that has not worked because of money for 10+ years, I have to say a life of significance. I would love to be able to hang my hat on something. I am also a musician that has not made a dent in the music scene. I would love just that one song that accomplished something. Not one that make millions but one that touches people.

 

Money does not mean you will come up with something significant. I know, I've tried. If you have something significant to offer, you will bring it forth. Despite the money, I still fight depression daily. I wish that I could do something that would make me smile, but I haven't. Maybe in the future. Today is not that day though.

[Going Commando]

My hero is Jared Diamond.  If I could have anyone's works and life, it'd be his.

[Riggo-toni]

I suppose I should answer this question, since I started this thread.  Here's the thing - at different times in my life, I would have answered quite differently. In my twenties, I might have wanted more to be famous or to change the world. In my thirties and forties, I definitely would have taken the money so I could quit work and see the world, and never worry about bills again.  Now that I am in my fifties, I am starting to shift back the other way.

[Forehead]

56 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

How about this guy?  He's not even famous, but talk about a life well lived: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Punke

 

I've got news for you.  The education he has, the positions he's held, the fact that one of his books got turned into a major motion picture....this guy has a serious bank account.  Fame is relative, I guarantee you more people know who he is than the average Joe.  Was he supposed to be an example for #2?

[Riggo-toni]

4 hours ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

You can buy a lot of signicance with $50,000,000.

Well, taxes will take a third, plus whatever you spend. You can't cure a major disease for $50m, let alone $30m, nor can you invent a new energy source just by donating that amount of research funds. If such things could be done for that little money, the solutions would already have been developed.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

4 hours ago, Riggo-toni said:

Well, taxes will take a third, plus whatever you spend. You can't cure a major disease for $50m, let alone $30m, nor can you invent a new energy source just by donating that amount of research funds. If such things could be done for that little money, the solutions would already have been developed.

I would open a home for orphaned children in India through Angel House. It's only like $50k to do that. Mosquito nets is another inexpensive way to save lives. I'm an efficient giver. Give, give give... And with the rest of the money, I would build an international harem consisting of the finest hookers from each nation, tasked with bringing me to an uninterrupted, year's long orgasm.

 

You know what? Actually, forget that crap about the orphans. We can probably get another weekend with the foreign hookers for that money I almost wasted. Also, i'm going to need you to go to the Bronx and bring me back the breast milk of a Cambodian immigrant.

[Going Commando]

3 hours ago, Forehead said:

 

I've got news for you.  The education he has, the positions he's held, the fact that one of his books got turned into a major motion picture....this guy has a serious bank account.  Fame is relative, I guarantee you more people know who he is than the average Joe.  Was he supposed to be an example for #2?

 

He can't promote his books because of his position in the state department.  Or even talk about them or even so much as sign copies.  His books barely sold before the movie came out.  I doubt he's made bank on his literary work and certainly didn't in his work for the government.  If he made good money, it was when he was working as a lawyer.  But he wasn't making lottery money doing that and he was slogging away pulling 12-14 hour days to do that and write.  His is not a life of leisure and luxury, but of important and difficult work.  And the irony is that he can't even increase his fame and personal recognition by capitalizing on the late and unlikely success of the Revenant by promoting his work.

[Elessar78]

I struggle to think of luxuries that I want. I'm happy with my car. I barely spend time in my house—always on the go with the kids or on the hustle. A sweet office chair or a standing work station would be a "luxury" I would like. I guess nice vacations (winters in the islands, summers in europe) annually with sweet digs and a nanny would be pretty cool. That hedonistic life will rot your soul though. I feel like I already live a life of significance through my coaching gig–no, my name prob won't ring out 500 years from now like Shakespeare or DaVinci but I'm aim to create a positive impact in the lives of 20-30 kids per year and their parents. I still remember the lessons my coaches taught me and how that has had significance in my life. Probably the one thing I'd really love is the luxury of having another 2-3 hours per day that I could.

[Vilandil Tasardur]

As a researching scientist, it's hard for me not to wonder what I could accomplish with the money. I would take a nobel prize over anything (although that doesn't happen for those of us in geosciences), so it's tempting to take the money and see what impact I could levy it into. 

[s0crates]

My understanding is that money does buy happiness, but only if you don't have enough to take care of yourself and your loved ones. Beyond that the amount of happiness money buys seems to obey the law of diminishing returns, and other factors like having good relationships, acheiving goals, responsibility, etc. start to make a bigger difference to human well-being. Given that, and assuming I manage to stay in the middle class, put me down for option B. Making a difference in the lives of others would probably be better for my soul than being rich.

[zoony]

14 hours ago, Elessar78 said:

I struggle to think of luxuries that I want. I'm happy with my car. I barely spend time in my house—always on the go with the kids or on the hustle. A sweet office chair or a standing work station would be a "luxury" I would like. I guess nice vacations (winters in the islands, summers in europe) annually with sweet digs and a nanny would be pretty cool. That hedonistic life will rot your soul though. I feel like I already live a life of significance through my coaching gig–no, my name prob won't ring out 500 years from now like Shakespeare or DaVinci but I'm aim to create a positive impact in the lives of 20-30 kids per year and their parents. I still remember the lessons my coaches taught me and how that has had significance in my life. Probably the one thing I'd really love is the luxury of having another 2-3 hours per day that I could.

 

Hire a chauffer and quit work!

[LD0506]

"It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question."
John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism (1863)

[ixcuincle]

former

 

Why would I want to be significant in any way? All I need is money. If I can keep a steady stream going while largely remaining insignificant and holed up in my little world I'm good

[Forehead]

20 hours ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

He can't promote his books because of his position in the state department.  Or even talk about them or even so much as sign copies.  His books barely sold before the movie came out.  I doubt he's made bank on his literary work and certainly didn't in his work for the government.  If he made good money, it was when he was working as a lawyer.  But he wasn't making lottery money doing that and he was slogging away pulling 12-14 hour days to do that and write.  His is not a life of leisure and luxury, but of important and difficult work.  And the irony is that he can't even increase his fame and personal recognition by capitalizing on the late and unlikely success of the Revenant by promoting his work.

 

Not compared to a 50 million dollar lottery winner, no.  However, if he was the Deputy USTR (My mother used to work for that agency) that means he was second in command of that entire agency.  That's highest level SES/ES, which is currently 207K per year before bonuses.  And I've seen the bonuses given out to these guys on those FedPay websites.  I agree it sucks he can't promote his work, but I'd guess he got something from the movie studio, and the books have sold more.

 

But throw that out.  The highest levels of government don't pay like CEO's, but this guy seems pretty together, and I'd bet he's got a seven figure bank account from his government work alone.  I'm pretty impressed with his resume, but I'd still take option 1

[skinsmarydu]

10 hours ago, ixcuincle said:

former

 

Why would I want to be significant in any way? All I need is money. If I can keep a steady stream going while largely remaining insignificant and holed up in my little world I'm good

I can understand this.  Totally.

[Elessar78]

On 6/17/2017 at 9:51 AM, Vilandil Tasardur said:

As a researching scientist, it's hard for me not to wonder what I could accomplish with the money. I would take a nobel prize over anything (although that doesn't happen for those of us in geosciences), so it's tempting to take the money and see what impact I could levy it into. 

But the money isn't for building significance. It's just for conspicuous consumption. 

[Ron78]

On 6/16/2017 at 2:20 PM, Riggo-toni said:

Okay, here's the scenario (and don't ask me how I came up with this during my lunch hour).

You can have only one of the following choices:

1. You get the winning $50m ticket for the lottery, paid out as an annuity of 2m/yr for the next 25 years. Unless you're as dumb as most NFL players, you're essentially set up for life, and won't have to work again unless you want to. You can travel, buy luxury box seats, hire premium escorts, send your children to the best schools, or whatever it is your heart desires.

 

2. You create/invent something which is appreciated for generations after you die. A painting that is as recognized and revered as Vermeer's Girl with the Pearl Earring; or a book or play that becomes a classic like Count of Monte Cristo or Dracula and keeps getting made into a new movie every generation or so; or a vaccine/cure for a major disease/illness; or a new solar cell or battery type that makes renewable energy dirt cheap and fossil fuel (as well as preceding renewable sources) completely obsolete. Whatever it is, recognition comes late, but does come and is overwhelming, but no monetary gain ever results. You will still be stuck at your job or whatever your current situation is.

 

I would pick scenario #1 without hesitation.

[Elessar78]

11 minutes ago, Ron78 said:

 

I would pick scenario #1 without hesitation.

It all assumes that you are unhappy in scenario 2. I think that's the Jonas Salk scenario.