Quote:
Originally Posted by silicon toad2000  It's seems to be a rule of thumb that your salary is reflective of the portion of your life you are prepared to give up for work.
I have seen exceptions to this rule, but more often than not it works.
I believe it has been discussed in other posts that this is reflective of people who don't 'work for the man'. I'm sure there is very little of Richard Bransons life that aren't spent furthering his empire in some way, likewise with the trumps and packers and (insert relevant uber-wealthy personality here). |
Well, basically the issue is even nastier than your rule of thumb implies.
What's scaring me is not that the balancer gets the 80k/year job and the fanatic the 90k/year job; it's that it seems more and more that the fanatic gets the 70k/year job and that the balancer doesn't even get any interviews. (My definition of work-life balancer here is someone who keeps work hours to something they consider reasonable and does not spend his/her off-time doing job- or line-of-work-related things.)
What is 'work for the man'?
I'm sure that at some level of wealth, one has to literally have it be one's life, but that's just not a price I'm willing to pay; I've seen what happens when people burn out.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tristan
I agree that there must be a balance between work and personal life, but I also believe that this applies directly to working for someone else. The rules change when you are working for yourself and doing what you love to do because then work no longer is work.
|
Not everyone in business for themselves necessarily loves what they do. I have no reason to believe that small-business owners necessarily are immune to burnout, lack of a personal life, or even just infuriating tedium.