Why does society make it seem like it is so much harder to earn money or find a job than it is for a man to find love?

Updated on : January 20, 2022 by Otto Stephenson



Why does society make it seem like it is so much harder to earn money or find a job than it is for a man to find love?

Finding love will always be more difficult than anything else, which makes it so precious. A job is a job, a tool to make ends meet and not something too important that you cannot live without as you can find another job.

Always remember, just because society says or shows something more difficult, it really isn't true. Something that society says is good can be a poison to you.

Good luck, God bless you on your search.

First, I will echo the others: people like Pavlina are not to be taken seriously. They are the web equivalent of bad infomercials. Enjoy for the value of the camp and move on.

Second, I'll answer quite literally and hopefully deeper.

Yes.

Society is conditioning us to think that we have to have a job to earn money. Intellectually, we all recognize that of course it is only one way and there are other ways (all varieties of risk-taking entrepreneurship). There are also ways to get rich through other forms of economy like bartering etc.

But we don't recognize this emotionally and viscerally.

Why?

On

Keep reading

First, I will echo the others: people like Pavlina are not to be taken seriously. They are the web equivalent of bad infomercials. Enjoy for the value of the camp and move on.

Second, I'll answer quite literally and hopefully deeper.

Yes.

Society is conditioning us to think that we have to have a job to earn money. Intellectually, we all recognize that of course it is only one way and there are other ways (all varieties of risk-taking entrepreneurship). There are also ways to get rich through other forms of economy like bartering etc.

But we don't recognize this emotionally and viscerally.

Why?

Middle-class lifestyles of the industrial age have conditioned the natural range of savage human risk behaviors to a much narrower and artificial range of domesticated risk behaviors. To see how far we've come, consider before about 3000 BC. C., the probability that an adult human male would die from being killed in a fight with another male was between 15 and 60% (statistic from Pankaj Ghemawat's excellent World 3.0). From that level of red-in-teeth-and-claws nature, we are now at the furthest end of the pendulum swing, where we are not even willing to risk a starving day to get some potential value in return. . For the most part, we have lost our ability to gamble, except in the form of entertainment.

I think William James said it best, something like 'Progress from brute to man is characterized by nothing so much as a decrease in the frequency of occasions suitable for fear'

Civilization has certainly proven valuable in some respects. But the cost has been the constant reduction of our appetite for risk. I estimate that about 50% of this narrowing occurred in the last 100 years. One of its effects has been this paycheck addiction syndrome that it is pointing to (and which many others have pointed to as of late).

I keep repeating a statistic ad nauseam, because people just don't realize the dramatic effect that the creation of an industrial middle class has had on average risk tolerance. In the 1790s, less than 20% of the United States had a wage income. In 1980, more than 80% did, at which point the trend was reversed.

This did not happen without a reason. The reason was that the industrial age of large-scale production required paid workers. People who needed to be trained in industrial style education.

The nominal purpose was to teach them the skills necessary to work within the infrastructure of industrial society. The other, unpublished purpose was to create a class of people that was far more disciplined and risk averse than is natural to the human species. In other words, a domesticated and comfort-loving species. This was accomplished through, literally, conditioning. The bells rang to wake up and for lunch. The food magically appeared. He took care of retirement. Everything happened like clockwork.

The first generations strongly resisted being recruited into the industrial workforce. Not despite his intimate familiarity with the risks ranging from crop failure to disease, hunger and death from poverty, but because of it. Because they understood that with those risks came freedom.

After that, subsequent generations were born and raised in captivity and never had a chance to test the environments that might have brought out their wildest risk-taking instincts.

And today, we have what you are signaling. A population that understands risk, entrepreneurship and gambling in the abstract, but not on an instinctual level, and seeks the security of a paycheck, even as that security is fast becoming a complete illusion.

Steve Jobs is a great believer in doing what you love above all else, above all else; We have all heard the quote, from the speech he gave at some university; I'll be paraphrasing, but it's something like that

"You have to do what you love, that is as true for your lovers as it is for your work"

Growing up, I always believed the same, but I just confused my passion for driving, however, I really believe that the only way to become truly rich and satisfied is to do what you are deeply passionate about.

Being rich on its own is pretty simple, get a finance degree

Keep reading

Steve Jobs is a great believer in doing what you love above all else, above all else; We have all heard the quote, from the speech he gave at some university; I'll be paraphrasing, but it's something like that

"You have to do what you love, that is as true for your lovers as it is for your work"

Growing up, I always believed the same, but I just confused my passion for driving, however, I really believe that the only way to become truly rich and satisfied is to do what you are deeply passionate about.

Being rich on its own is pretty simple, get a finance degree or become a doctor, aeronautical engineer, etc., that will take a large part of your life from you and while you do it you will not be happy, but hey, when you finally reach 35 and all your best years (physically) are behind you, so you want to start doing what really matters to you, it doesn't make sense. I think sometimes people's comfort level is different from others, just as an example, the lifestyle of a struggling musician doesn't come close to the lifestyle of a struggling financier, and if you want to base your lifestyle dream, ultimately you just want to chase money. - I hope you see my point?

If you love what you do and are truly passionate about, the money will surely follow, if not today, at least some day, and the reasoning behind this is quite simple, even the best street sweeper in the world is well compensated, because first and foremost Secondly, he loves what he does, which alone has a value that cannot be delivered monetarily and secondly, because it is the best, it will be compensated well because no one else on the planet and sweeps as he does, and that is why the discrepancies in professional sports. and entertainment, even in the business world; once you are the best or even one of the best in ANY field, you will be paid handsomely, that in today's world is almost certain, but it all comes down to whether this is your true passion:

Passion consumes you and overtime will make you superior in whatever endeavor.

Thanks for the A2A.


This is a US-centric response.

Because it's mostly true. However, what is missing from his statement is that to be successful as an entrepreneur, you need family resources. At the very least, it is a great advantage if you come from an enterprising family. The knowledge and experience gained from that are invaluable. It will save you several failures and 10-20 years of travel. It's even better if that same family can provide the capital to get started.

Looking at current trends, even the well-paid private professional jobs of 20-30 years ago are not good enough to cover the costs of e.

Keep reading

This is a US-centric response.

Because it's mostly true. However, what is missing from his statement is that to be successful as an entrepreneur, you need family resources. At the very least, it is a great advantage if you come from an enterprising family. The knowledge and experience gained from that are invaluable. It will save you several failures and 10-20 years of travel. It's even better if that same family can provide the capital to get started.

Looking at current trends, even the well-paying private professional jobs of 20-30 years ago are not good enough to cover the costs of the required education (doctor, lawyer, dentist, accountant) and leave enough influence available to start your own practice. .

Drive through any suburb and check out the dentist's offices. How many have a name compared to how many have a company brand? “Mountain Hills Dental, Extra Care Dental, etc…” They are not classified as companies for marketing reasons, but because they are owned by private equity. The dentist is an employee of a chain that could have 30 or more offices and probably won't be there next year, replaced by another recent graduate trying to pay off his loans.

In general, there is little fertile ground available for simple businesses. Any company that is relatively easy to get into and profitable has been undermined by private equity to the point that it is no longer worth it. There is too much competition. Combine that with the incredibly high cost of education and we end up where we are now:

Upward mobility in the US is now largely a myth. The biggest predictor of an individual's future social and economic status in the US is their father's status.

I think what most of those who ask this question, and there are many who have, seem to overlook, is that money does not have to be the only compensation that can be offered. If a particular task, whatever it is, needs to be done, there must be an incentive for someone to do it. Currently, we use money as an incentive, mainly.

Money is simply a medium of exchange. If we want to drink milk, but we do not have the space to house a cow, nor the knowledge of how to take care of it, then we must obtain our milk from someone else. How do we do that without money? Perhaps we can offer help to the owner of the cow for pr

Keep reading

I think what most of those who ask this question, and there are many who have, seem to overlook, is that money does not have to be the only compensation that can be offered. If a particular task, whatever it is, needs to be done, there must be an incentive for someone to do it. Currently, we use money as an incentive, mainly.

Money is simply a medium of exchange. If we want to drink milk, but we do not have the space to house a cow, nor the knowledge of how to take care of it, then we must obtain our milk from someone else. How do we do that without money? Perhaps we can offer to help the cow owner by providing hay. Now we have to get the hay from someone who has it. Maybe we can offer the guy in the hay some apples from the tree in our backyard. Now, in this scenario, we have three media of exchange. Milk, hay and apples. Of course, the amount of one that the other will give us is its respective "value."

As you can see, these "media" depend on the availability of each one. How much easier if we find something that is in limited supply and use it in the place of each of our 'mediums'? It should be easy to carry, so that a large quantity can be carried. How about gold? It is in limited supply and since it has other uses besides looking good, it would have "value" for others. Now I could sell my apples for gold and buy the milk and the farmer could use that gold to buy his hay. Or if we decided that we wanted something more, we would have the means to pay for it with the gold from our apples (or milk or hay).

What it comes down to, Danielle, we can never get what we want without “money” because no one will get it for free. They will always want something for their problems, and whatever they want, it will be the same as money, a medium of exchange.

Because the most pernicious emotion is envy. People's perception of wealth is relative to the people around them. A “millionaire” in London can be someone who only owns a one-bedroom apartment in Zone 2.

Six figures will allow you to live a very pleasant life almost anywhere in the world ... it is "a lot of money" for almost anyone. (A net worth of just $ 5,000 puts you in the richest half of the world's population. A net worth of $ 100,000 and you're in the top 10%.) But to live well on $ 100,000 in its most expensive regions, you will have to let go of envy.

If you have a roof over your head, enough to eat and your

Keep reading

Because the most pernicious emotion is envy. People's perception of wealth is relative to the people around them. A “millionaire” in London can be someone who only owns a one-bedroom apartment in Zone 2.

Six figures will allow you to live a very pleasant life almost anywhere in the world ... it is "a lot of money" for almost anyone. (A net worth of just $ 5,000 puts you in the richest half of the world's population. A net worth of $ 100,000 and you're in the top 10%.) But to live well on $ 100,000 in its most expensive regions, you will have to let go of envy.

If you have a roof over your head, enough to eat and your health, you are already a winner. Treat everything above that as a bonus. After all, ANYONE can earn six figures if they want to, and that's enough to live a great life. Release the green-eyed monster.

Some advice on this in my new booklet, "How to make life"

I used to think about this question a lot. So much so that I started doing things that I loved. Like working in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, as a magazine editor. Or travel the world and make a living from my blog.

In fact, the more time passed, the more I kept asking this question. "Am I loving this?" "Does it make me money?"

It became a borderline obsession.

It was an obsession.

The more time I spent thinking about what I was doing, the more they started to bother me. Constant evaluation and jerking back and forth killed me. And it ruined all the passion I had for things like magazine writing.

Keep reading

I used to think about this question a lot. So much so that I started doing things that I loved. Like working in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, as a magazine editor. Or travel the world and make a living from my blog.

In fact, the more time passed, the more I kept asking this question. "Am I loving this?" "Does it make me money?"

It became a borderline obsession.

It was an obsession.

The more time I spent thinking about what I was doing, the more they started to bother me. Constant evaluation and jerking back and forth killed me. And it ruined all the passion I had for things like writing magazines and blogging.

Now I'm at a point where I don't think so much about this question. Now I just do what I want to do. If the money arrives, then bonus.

I'm not going to sit around and wait for it.

I'm not going to let expectation kill the things I love to do.

Sometimes it is good to keep your passions as a hobby. Wallace Stevens spent his working life in insurance, and he won a Pulitzer Prize! Even Nietzsche and Einstein came to think that the intersection between work and passion is complicated.

Whatever you do, build professional capital first.

Develop skills that are rare and valuable.

This will lead you to ask this question in another way. Where money and passion flow but perhaps the mission is out of reach. Read Cal Newport.

Then there is the fact that you could spend an eternity constantly reviewing this. Just like me

Sometimes it is better to perform a lobotomy on one part of your brain. Forget that you need to be passionate or rich. And go on living.

Life is rich. There is so much more to enjoy besides money and passion.

If by "rich" you mean a significant income, there are a host of jobs that provide them. Arguably, one could be a hedge fund manager, a physician, an attorney who specializes in, say, patent law, and many others. Those can make you rich. However (there is always a however), it is important to understand the difference between being rich and being rich. I tell my clients "rich is income. It is what you earn every week / month / year. Wealth is what you accumulate." The difference is important. Most people consider that a person who earns $ 2,000,000.00 / year is quite rich. But if she

Keep reading

If by "rich" you mean a significant income, there are a host of jobs that provide them. Arguably, one could be a hedge fund manager, a physician, an attorney who specializes in, say, patent law, and many others. Those can make you rich. However (there is always a however), it is important to understand the difference between being rich and being rich. I tell my clients "rich is income. It is what you earn every week / month / year. Wealth is what you accumulate." The difference is important. Most people consider that a person who earns $ 2,000,000.00 / year is quite rich. But if you spend $ 2,500,000.00 / year, you are still bankrupt. A friend who is a billionaire says that people like that "are just broke on a higher level." A rich person is one who accumulates wealth. Interestingly, being rich is almost completely independent of income. Rich people can take 2-3 trips a year or do other things they enjoy, but are willing to make the necessary trade-offs. They avoid the temptation of instant gratification. They control their expenses. They avoid debt that has no other purpose than to let them have something now instead of waiting to get it (instant gratification, again). They save and invest. They don't live a lifestyle that squanders their wealth if the economy goes south. In short, they exercise the discipline to get and enjoy what they want. Another billionaire put it this way: "Getting rich is boring. Being rich is great!" he is willing to make the necessary concessions. They avoid the temptation of instant gratification. They control their expenses. They avoid debt that has no other purpose than to let them have something now instead of waiting to get it (instant gratification, again). They save and invest. They don't live a lifestyle that squanders their wealth if the economy goes south. In short, they exercise the discipline to get and enjoy what they want. Another billionaire put it this way: "Getting rich is boring. Being rich is great!" he is willing to make the necessary concessions. They avoid the temptation of instant gratification. They control their expenses. They avoid debt that has no other purpose than to let them have something now instead of waiting to get it (instant gratification, again). They save and invest. They don't live a lifestyle that squanders their wealth if the economy goes south. In short, they exercise the discipline to get and enjoy what they want. Another billionaire put it this way: "Getting rich is boring. Being rich is great!" Don't live a lifestyle that squanders your wealth if the economy goes south. In short, they exercise the discipline to get and enjoy what they want. Another billionaire put it this way: "Getting rich is boring. Being rich is great!" Don't live a lifestyle that squanders your wealth if the economy goes south. In short, they exercise the discipline to get and enjoy what they want. Another billionaire put it this way: "Getting rich is boring. Being rich is great!"

I hope this helps.

If it is.

Society places limits on how to earn money, whether for the protection of society as a whole or for the protection of individuals.

Protecting people is easier. We do not allow people to earn money by robbery, murder, theft, fraud or many other ways that cause harm to others. This extends to things like employment laws, where it could harm employees, or hygiene laws, where it could cause illness. We do this because most people prefer to live in such a society, and because the next time you, or a loved one, may be scammed, robbed, or killed.

Har

Keep reading

If it is.

Society places limits on how to earn money, whether for the protection of society as a whole or for the protection of individuals.

Protecting people is easier. We do not allow people to earn money by robbery, murder, theft, fraud or many other ways that cause harm to others. This extends to things like employment laws, where it could harm employees, or hygiene laws, where it could cause illness. We do this because most people prefer to live in such a society, and because the next time you, or a loved one, may be scammed, robbed, or killed.

The damage to society is more complex, but where a large number of people or society itself is harmed. This could be things like preventing a monopoly, but it could also be broader things, like preventing one person from owning too high a percentage of the means to prevent them from accumulating too much power. We could also make sure that a company cannot be racist or sexist as this is also considered harmful to society.

These social limits are normally enforced by law, but they can also be enforced through non-legal pressures, as seen when a company is boycotted for actions that may be legal, but enough people think they are wrong.

No.

There is no reason why you should expect this. Yachts are not essential. Meals are. But no one is going to trade their yacht for a meal unless they are in an incredibly desperate situation.

Imagine if essential workers made the most money. That would mean that, other things being equal, people would rather be essential workers. But that would mean that we would have far more essential workers than we need, which would lower their wages.

The main factor that determines who makes the most money is how common the skills they use to do their job are. While growing food can be essential

Keep reading

No.

There is no reason why you should expect this. Yachts are not essential. Meals are. But no one is going to trade their yacht for a meal unless they are in an incredibly desperate situation.

Imagine if essential workers made the most money. That would mean that, other things being equal, people would rather be essential workers. But that would mean that we would have far more essential workers than we need, which would lower their wages.

The main factor that determines who makes the most money is how common the skills they use to do their job are. While growing food can be essential, there are far more people who can farm than can throw a 100 mph fastball. So being a major league baseball pitcher will probably pay more than being a farmer.

Sympathy? Pain? Contempt?

His disrespect for "money" is but a poor attempt to repaint the ambition, hard work, intelligence, and talents of others as flaws, and his own flaws as unjust oppression. I call shit. Money is an expression of value that can be converted into desired goods and services. Value is earned and accumulated by providing others with the benefit, the product, the work, the talent, the invention… whatever value one has contributed to others. If you have no money, you are not providing value to others and you must reform yourself. Find ways to meet the needs and wi

Keep reading

Sympathy? Pain? Contempt?

His disrespect for "money" is but a poor attempt to repaint the ambition, hard work, intelligence, and talents of others as flaws, and his own flaws as unjust oppression. I call shit. Money is an expression of value that can be converted into desired goods and services. Value is earned and accumulated by providing others with the benefit, the product, the work, the talent, the invention… whatever value one has contributed to others. If you have no money, you are not providing value to others and you must reform yourself. Find ways to meet the needs and wants of others, and you will have money to meet your own needs and wants. Otherwise, money is an inert thing, neither good nor bad, and you are simply a failure.

Other Guides:


GET SPECIAL OFFER FROM OUR PARTNER.