UKC

Which would you prefer???

To be mega wealthy but no time to enjoy life

OR

have little money, but to have enjoyed, experienced and done many things?

I know what my choice would be, option 2 by a mile. How about the rest of you???

In reply to An Triubhas: Can I be mega wealthy with lots of time to enjoy life?

In reply to An Triubhas:

but sadly that noble notion isnt allways true

rich folk generaly have more free time and say on how often they can access that free time.

for many without money a disporportionate ammount of their time is spent in trying to acquire it, with much less flexibility as to when they can use the free time they have.

so your question is bollox realy

In reply to Daithi O Murchu:

Come back when you know how to spell!

In reply to An Triubhas:
Gut instinct : no.2. but on realism a bit of both would be best. I don't need a fortune to be happy, but at the least I need to be able to get some nice food, petrol and money to live in a vaguely nice place.

I wouldn't want to live in a grotty little hole all year so that I could go climbing for a few weeks.

So, IMHO it's swings and roundabouts...

In reply to An Triubhas:
All I ask is the opportunity to prove that money doesn't make you happy!

In reply to An Triubhas: Having tried the second option I'm attempting to get somewhere in the middle... having no cash to do anything defeats the point of the exercise...

In reply to Daithi O Murchu:

Hahahahahaha agree :-0

In reply to An Triubhas:

Your OP is idiotically leading and simplistic. Of course nobody will say they would prefer to have no time to enjoy life.

What is the point of this? To show the world that you are a salt-of-the-earth, well-rounded, right-on and down-with-the-kids, and to make yourself feel better about being on a shit salary?

In reply to Heike:

An is not allowing "a bit of both". Read the OP again. Properly.

In reply to An Triubhas:

Come back when you know how to use:
question marks;
colons;
semicolons;
hyphens

In reply to An Triubhas: having just come into shed loads of money,it makes me feel very happy,liberated and have freedom of choice. It's a very nice position to be in,because,within reason,I can indulge,do what I want,go where I want,buy nice things for loved ones etc.

What's not to like?

In reply to An Triubhas: As has been mentioned, you've got your questions wrong. It should be, would you rather be mega wealthy and have enough money to give you the freedom to enjoy life, or would you rather have little money and work so hard trying to get by that you have no freedom or time to enjoy life.

Most rich people work hard but there's usually the understanding that the money they earn will eventually pay them back as they get older and have more time. If you have little money your work/life balance is unlikely to change till your in your 70's and you finally drop down at work with a heart attack.

Pretty pointless question when put like that.

Ben

In reply to An Triubhas:

Option 2. On the basis of option 1, there is no point in being the richest person in the graveyard.

In reply to An Triubhas: I'd prefer to be a well rounded individual who has enough money for their needs....... and a little more, who also enjoys their life.

In reply to David Hooper: Wisdom tells us that lots of money isn't the answer. You'll have to judge yourself, but it can spoil it for a lot of people. Doing what you want, going where you want, buying what you want is probably at the route of a lot of our problems.

In reply to An Triubhas:

The question is a bit daft, and heavily loaded. Surely the whole point in life is trying to reach the balance between the two extremes that you and your loved ones are happy with?


Chris

In reply to An Triubhas: It's about having the freedom to do what you want when you want. This comes at either extreme of the wealth scale. For those with no job and no commitments who can get by on the minimum then they have the free time to travel around an go climbing etc. Think 80's dole funded climbers etc.

Then for those in the middle with a wife, kid full time job and mortgage to pay, they have little freedom to do what they like

Then at the other end, those who have wealth and don't have to go to work anymore or worry about living costs etc can again have the time to do as they like, all be it in a little more luxury than the first group.

In reply to An Triubhas:


As a friend of mine said: you can always make more money, you can never make more time.

In reply to Chris Craggs: Perhaps we have a wider committment to just us and our loved ones though. Otherwise greed and selfishness and excess are likely to spoil things.

In reply to An Triubhas:

Agreed, it is rather a simplistic and idealistic question.

I think it boils down to a better question, 'How much is enough?'

Once you have enough to comfortably meet your needs, you can work on having a decent work/ life balance. It seems that the constant acquisition of more wealth is possibly not the route to 'happiness', but neither is scraping by in a constant exhausting battle to meet you and your family's basic needs. (See Maslow's hierarchy of need).

In reply to An Triubhas:

Often in my experience, the person earning 25k a year who rents a place and drives a 7 yr old normal car, flies easyjet to Spain for holidays is treading water just as much as the person who earns £100k a year, has a £400k morgage flies BA to Spain and leases a £40k car.

Yes the £100k person could downsize and live a more frugal life and accumulate more savings...but this rarely happens. We expand our purchases to fit our salaries and there is barely any pleasure in that £40k car after the initial buz of getting it new, a big house with a big mortgage is not nirvana, and BA is just easyjet without the "hidden charges"

In reply to Game of Conkers:

Couldn't have put it better myself!

In reply to Phil1919: I have a special set of circumstances Clint. Im terminally ill and had some lump sum pension payments, so I am spoiling friends and loved ones buying all the toys I ever lusted after, and having holidays with my partner. Basically living every day to the full ( and that may well include a quiet day sitting relaxing listening to music -Im not on a mad merrygo round)

I guess for mor perspective, I would say a happy contented head and soul is more important than money. I worked as an mountain instructor and expedition guide. I was comfortable, but would never have gotton rich. But I loved what I did, it took me to some amazing places and I worked with some amazing people. I would have done it for nothing if I hadnt gotton paid.

Likewise, I know friends who have allotments and they find this so absorbing and satisfying that they spend their lives pottering in the soil rather than doing a paid job.

Work to live - dont live to work!!!

In reply to David Hooper:

Totally agree with that!

In reply to David Hooper: I would agree with all of that. It took me a while as I grew up to realize the wisdom that said 'live in the present' is one of life's most important messages. I guess the situation you find yourself in would enable you to do that. I think its why I rate sea kayaking amongst the best experiences I have had as in certain condtions meant I could only think of what was around me. I clearly remember Denis Potter's last interview, and the intoxicating way he described his view of life in the present. He described the scent of a flower and made me realise it is one of life's delights.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

I really like that.

In reply to Game of Conkers: whoop there it is. spot on.

In reply to An Triubhas:

Wealth does not necessarily bring happiness. Life is so much better when you have a job that you enjoy. I used to earn a very good salary, but hated my job and my boss. Some of the people there were on six figure salaries but were bloody miserable. I earn less now but like my job, I don't think that you can put a price on that.

In reply to An Triubhas:

From your other thread
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=510530
It seems that your way to "enjoy experience and do many things" without working hard to save up is to get others to do the work to pay for your holiday (and give some change to charity)

In reply to An Triubhas:

Having been, in my life;

Poor and miserable,
Poor and happy,
Comfortably off and miserable,
Comfortably off and happy.

poor and miserable is most certainly the worst. As a wiser man than me said, money may not make you happy, but it at least means you can be miserable in better surroundings.

I think the point made by people on this thread is a good one. Money enables you to take control of your life to a much greater extent. If you want the foreign holiday, you do it. If you want some new cams or some other shiny toy, you go out and buy it. The experience you mention has to be bought with something, so its not an either/or - most people aim for the middle - to have enough money to enjoy themselves without sacrificing every spare minute to the man.

However, having been there and bought that particular T-shirt, I have to say that poor is not noble or morally desirable, its a constant bl**dy slog to work out where the next meal is coming from, in conditions which are frankly disgusting (I was renting from a slum landlord at the time), and generally in situation of ill heath and continuous mental stress.

Wanting to claw yourself out of that particular pit, at whatever cost, is entirely natural.

To (mis) quote lyrics, poor is most certainly not cool.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

I'm not generally a person who agrees with Mr Blue Straggler, but I do wonder if he has hit a nerve (or a nail on the head) here.

In reply to An Triubhas:
Num Num would like to be wealthy.
But he wouldn't like to be Adrian Beecroft.

In reply to An Triubhas:

I'd rather a life of fabulous wealth and live to 40 than a life of strife and live to 80.

In reply to An Triubhas:

2 for sure. A harder choice would be:

To be wealthy, see little of the family due to work, have alot of stress, but afford annual holidays abroad, decent middle class house, car and most mod cons

OR

To have little money, spend lots of time with the family, have less stress, but only afford local breaks / camping, a less spacious house, 2nd hand cars, few mod cons.

On balance, I'd still go for 2.

In reply to jackcarr: Having lots of money, does not in itself make you happy (unless your a Jewish accountant), it's the freedom and options that money gives you, that makes you happy.

As an old friend of mine used to say - I'd sooner be pissed off and rich, than pissed off and poor!

In reply to An Triubhas: I've read your question. The answer is obvoiusly 2.

I know people who were No. 1, I'm probably No. 1 myslef compared to a lot of people. You can get drawn into working because that is what is expected of you. All the hours possible during the week, late nights, weekends. You're so tired on your time off you sleep.

The second intimates that at one time you were wealthy but you've spent your money having a good time.

So it's a loaded question. At which point do you give up doing no. 1 and start doing no. 2. knowing that once the money is gone you have to start doing no. 1. again. OR do you keep going doing no. 1 because you have commitments and you don't know when the merry go round is going to stop (I'll give you a clue... I think it probably will in the next few years for all of us!)

In reply to An Triubhas:

Having an equal work/life balance certainly helps my case. 7days on/7days off, 12hour shifts and 33days holiday (so basically 5months on/7 months off in the year!) is certainly a good way to live.

However my girlfriend still works the 9-5 and only has the 2 days at the weekend really to commit to doing anything, I don't think I could ever go back to that. She's always tired and has a huge list of things to do in those 2 days that she really never gets anything done that she wants to do or has a break. I feel guilty for having so much time off.

In reply to An Triubhas:

Depends how much you enjoy your job, no?

A

In reply to An Triubhas: I wanted to be unhappy AND poor. So I got a girlfriend.