Plentiful funds: a blessing or a curse?

[MuggedByReality]

 I was recently pondering the question (not sure atm if it’s hypothetical) of whether having a sizeable regular income stream would be a positive thing.

0n the one hand, you could pay your way though Yale Ugrad (see Ivy League thread ). Or finance a start-up for your dream entreprenurial venture. Or buy a good supply of mellifluous single malt whisky, or other such luxury.
 On the flip side, it might not feel as sweet making your first buck as a checkout chick/dude, or taking your friends on a ski trip only made possible by your efforts in an essay competition. Some potentially invaluable experiences could be lost. And you could even meet the love of your life at said part-time job.
Then again, not having to think about money might mean you choose activities valuable in other ways; you could nevertheless revel in the opportunity to do a fairly basic job for the edification gained. And you might have more chance of discovering your true passion(s).

 What do we think?
 

[Eriny]

I know that having to work in uni has definitely benefited me. I've learned a lot of skills in my job and I've gained experience that is relevant for whatever my career will be. If I were rich, I probably wouldn't have gotten a job, which would make my life post-uni much more difficult (unless I could simply live off inheritance or something).

It's an interesting division between people who get everything they want and people who need to work for it, because both kinds are ultimately in the top 8% or something of income earners in the world. I can't buy (for want of a better word) that people who can afford food and shelter and such can have problems which in any way approximate the problems people have in the third world. That's not to say that rich people don't have problems or aren't sometimes victims of the way they live, but in comparison first world problems are relatively easy to navigate.

I think having a lot of money by first world standards is ultimately a good thing if you have common sense. If you don't, you would probably end up wasting lots of that money on silly expensive things. If you are sensible, money can buy you a lot of freedom. You don't have to take just any job, you can be a bit picky, you can structure your day the way you want to, you can follow your interests quite easily, you have access to any resource you need. That's why I don't necessarily think that people who are born into wealth and are wealthy from day one are necessarily well-off, because if you never really understand the value of a dollar it's meaningless to you. If, on the other hand, you used to be not so wealthy, it's meaningful and you think a little bit more about spending it appropriately.

(note that most of my claims are gross generalisations)

[binders]

i'd say it's a positive thing. Yes, there might be some things in favour of supporting yourself through your earnings in terms of satisfactions or the experiences you might gain in the process of working to support yourself.   However, I think there would be as many positive experiences open to someone who had an income stream and didn't have to work, experiences which wouldn't be available to someone who had to devote possibly quite a large portion of their time to self-support.

you could argue that potential psychological effects of not being responsible for your own upkeep might be negative - complacency, unfounded overconfidence, an idea of the value of money and relationships which could be out of synch with the norm.  But you could argue that similar negative effects could arise from too much satisfaction in earning your keep.

I've always had to work to support myself and i'd have no problem at all with having a sizeable regular income stream if one were available!

[darren94]

A curse. Simply because you see those who are forced to work their butt off due to their lack of a family "trust fund" work and achieve much higher than those who become complacent due to their prior knowledge of success. Success is not only measured on the grounds of the end result, but the journey to that result..

[QuantumJG]

This is a tough question.

I personally have never lived a life where money is 'just there'. The question is tough because you miss out on some things that some rich kids have access to and you do feel inferior in some ways to rich kids (maybe that's just me). Having money 'just there' would make some aspects of life much simpler. The power to buy something when you decide you want something is VERY tempting.

My career pathway isn't something that won't make me a millionaire but if I can live comfortably and I actually did get to pursue a life as an academic I would be very happy.

You could argue that it is a "curse". Having so much money would stop someone from appreciating the value of money. When I watch the news and see people who were multi-millionaires who lost it all, I believe that they would have a hard time adjusting (I like to think of a hot metal being dipped in water).

I personally don't believe I'm wise enough to answer this question. If I was asked to choose between wealth and something else. I may pick the wrong choice. I personally believe that everything comes at some cost.

[Nomvalt]

I believe that there is no ethical reason why anyone should be rich in the 21st century. We are at a time where starvation, poverty and many other global problems have grown to become rampant and abundant. If you are rich now then you have not done enough to help solve all of these problems. Money is a tool which can be used to spread human equality throughout the world and shift global living standards for the better.

[darren94]

Wtf is ur dp! -shudders-
Anyway, true.

[QuantumJG]

Wtf is ur dp! -shudders-
Anyway, true.