Is it Worth Busting Your Ass in a Career?

[Blade Runner]

Yep, everything in life is based on incentive, at least in the long run. The feel good stuff about integrity and principle won't hold up if the incentive isn't there over time - you'll move on. One of the strategies of business owners is to do their best to fool people into thinking their job matters in some way that's beyond what it is (thus the family references and "team building" etc). I don't blame anyone for any strategy to get the most of out work. When it comes down to it, though, you work to live, and that's it. All the other stuff is peripheral, and can be an idol, as @GodfatherPartTwo said.

If you are lucky enough to have the type of job or business that can really achieve major gains monetarily over time, you of course will be judged based on what you do with what you were given, and what you acquired. It's important to remember that we should all be grateful for most of what we have, regardless of how "far" we get in this world. I've been fortunate enough to have accomplished some really nice things in terms of profession or career, but I'm also very honest about how little of a difference there is in the top echelons of society, if you use money as some kind of measuring stick.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

If you want to know if selling your soul to the corporations is worth it, look at your average leftist, even more, look at the young career woman who has put off marriage and family in favor of a career. Do these people look happy or fulfilled to you? They do this so they can pursue their own lusts.

On the flip side, I know guys who have kids who are still lounging around and working part time here or there. Unacceptable. If you have kids, get a job that pays well enough to provide for them or work more jobs until you have enough to provide for them. In this case, these people are too happy, too comfortable.

So as always, there's a balance.

 

[Douglas Quaid]

Lots of great advice. Thanks everybody.

One thing I'll add is be careful trying to turn a hobby into a career. I work golf maintenance and can't stand golf anymore, and this is just as a greenskeeper. But the more responsibilities you get and the longer you're at a place, the more you start to notice. The amount of nonsense golf course superintendents, and even the assistants, have to put up with is insane. And it all trickles down. Much less stressful ways to top out around $100k, which isn't even that high of an income where I live. Or just go for a more lucrative career if you want to be at work that much.

If you're expected to care this much about someone else's business, you might as well just start your own (if possible).

 

[cosine]

On the flip side, I know guys who have kids who are still lounging around and working part time here or there. Unacceptable. If you have kids, get a job that pays well enough to provide for them or work more jobs until you have enough to provide for them.

Women want to date and marry men with high or at least decent socioeconomic status. It's the #1 item for them, for good reason.

If you want kids, you're better off building wealth.

 

[Blade Runner]

Women want to date and marry men with high or at least decent socioeconomic status. It's the #1 item for them, for good reason.

As we've seen, the modern world that gives women jobs (beyond catering to them or propping them up) sets up a world where this effectively is neutralized, which is sad. I've mentioned recently that one of the few "objective" things (it's a different way to put it, stay with me) that women do consider is a baseline of resources or support. That is, once they have that, they'll generally go for way higher guys (smv wise) or bust. When you combine that with playing yourself by limiting the pool even further by advancing (oftentimes artificially) in material gains, you see why historically women chasing jobs was at best stupid, and at worst (now) utterly chaotic.

We can move this to a different thread, but I'm curious now, how many women do you think these days in developed countries get married at 22 or younger? You often hear that the best marry young, especially around here, but I can't say I've met but maybe 1 girl in my life that would have married around that age. I'd rate her higher now that I'm older and youth is FAR more attractive, but back then I'd say she was in the 6s range.

 

[Sandalwood Peak]

As we've seen, the modern world that gives women jobs (beyond catering to them or propping them up) sets up a world where this effectively is neutralized, which is sad. I've mentioned recently that one of the few "objective" things (it's a different way to put it, stay with me) that women do consider is a baseline of resources or support. That is, once they have that, they'll generally go for way higher guys (smv wise) or bust. When you combine that with playing yourself by limiting the pool even further by advancing (oftentimes artificially) in material gains, you see why historically women chasing jobs was at best stupid, and at worst (now) utterly chaotic.

We can move this to a different thread, but I'm curious now, how many women do you think these days in developed countries get married at 22 or younger? You often hear that the best marry young, especially around here, but I can't say I've met but maybe 1 girl in my life that would have married around that age. I'd rate her higher now that I'm older and youth is FAR more attractive, but back then I'd say she was in the 6s range.

We have to be careful about approaching the topic from this national geographic point of view.

What you’re saying is true but it’s not remarkable. Modern women are more than capable to be traditional when environmental pressures demand it. That’s kind of why guys struggle so much, they expect things that have no reason for occurring.

When people say women love money, it’s like yeah, should they not? They’re stupid, fairly useless and status driven due to environmental pressures, including genetics. I “love” all kinds of stuff too but I still have free will.

What most men refuse to let go off is the idea that in a traditional society women used to actually love you. If men were more pragmatic the situation with women would be more simplified beyond this “there’s too many whores”.

All you have to ask yourself is where do I find a woman that needs me and a woman whose lifestyle is fairly prudish? Then you ask yourself “how do I keep it that way”?

That is why “bad boys” are so successful. They don’t sit around hoping a woman is going to start loving them. They argue, put pressure, make appeals, even intimidate women because that’s how life works. You do what is necessary, not wish for things to happen.

It’s strictly a nice guy thing to hope for things to happen. Imagine treating this forum like this. “I really like this forum but I won’t post unless you guys tell me you respect my opinion, to share it and to come back tomorrow. It just feels you guys don’t actually care about me when no one mentions me.”

 

[cosine]

As we've seen, the modern world that gives women jobs (beyond catering to them or propping them up) sets up a world where this effectively is neutralized, which is sad. I've mentioned recently that one of the few "objective" things (it's a different way to put it, stay with me) that women do consider is a baseline of resources or support. That is, once they have that, they'll generally go for way higher guys (smv wise) or bust. When you combine that with playing yourself by limiting the pool even further by advancing (oftentimes artificially) in material gains, you see why historically women chasing jobs was at best stupid, and at worst (now) utterly chaotic.

So you're saying:
- poor women, or women from relatively poor countries, will be happy to date/marry a guy of average but stable means
- once the women hit some sort of average/stable resource level themselves, their expectations rise wildly; if they can't find a total stud, they'd rather be single.

That makes sense.

We can move this to a different thread, but I'm curious now, how many women do you think these days in developed countries get married at 22 or younger? You often hear that the best marry young, especially around here, but I can't say I've met but maybe 1 girl in my life that would have married around that age. I'd rate her higher now that I'm older and youth is FAR more attractive, but back then I'd say she was in the 6s range.

Not a lot, and I know of a guy who's maybe 50-55. His daughter got married a couple of years ago (she was around age 21) and the father was very critical -- afraid that she was making the wrong choice and didn't quite know herself yet, wasn't mature enough.

I think it's fair for him to at least worry. Any father should. But, that guy just got divorced himself. The main factor there, as far as I could tell, is that he has a super avoidant personality style. He just doesn't bring things up until it's a problem, then avoids problems by running away from them.

 

[ThinTern]

Be hard on yourself here:

Where do you fall in the talent and industrious categories? Talented but lazy = stay corporate, play the game, work smart, never let them know how much you are shamming off, enjoy the perks. Talented and always industrious = start your own business, deal with the pain. Untalented and lazy = be glad you get paid for anything. Untalented and industrious = keep grinding, maybe something will work out.

Please note, the "talent" threshold is not "PhD Petroleum Engineering" or such. There are UPS drivers pulling 150k. They may have the swing shift, but it pays well. There are hustlers out there washing windows making even more. Their talent is focused performance.

If you are talented and industrious, a career is not worth it, unless you are exceptionally well-paid. The kind of money where you and your wife giggle and ask what to do with it all. I never got there in career work.

Totally. The key here is to be brutally honest with yourself and know your real productivity capability. Next, size up the 'BS' factor of your job. ~80% of our current economy is total BS, and is only plausible by social democracy wealth re-distribution and debt financed economic "growth" since the 1970's. So ask yourself if your job exists at all if the money printers weren't working overtime like they have been the last 50 years. If your job falls into the 'BS job' category, then I really don't think it is worth it. Play the game, put in the minimum, and move on with your life. One has to understand the incentive structure of their job.

On the flip side, the performers of the world who still produce wealth are still rewarded appropriately. Take a venture capitol funded start-up for example. If you were to work for such a company, you would likely have equity and a more direct impact on the company... you'd certainly deal with way less BS. Also there is the potential for a huge payout... if you perform! That's when "busting your ass" starts to become worth it.

So if you are producing real wealth like commodities or a productive product that will somehow generate wealth, and you have ownership of the results in the form of equity, bust your ass. That's as close as we can get to working a field and reaping what we sow. Which is how man was originally designed to live.

However, if you work for a company whose sole existence is built on a fake premise (most government work, any work where the government is the customer, most finance jobs), then you're better off doing the bare minimum and building your life in other areas like your network, social circle, church, and neighborhood. Hell, those other areas will likely afford you better job opportunities anyway (When you work in an industry described above, it ALWAYS becomes about who you know, not what you know).

My two cents.

 

[Blade Runner]

All you have to ask yourself is where do I find a woman that needs me and a woman whose lifestyle is fairly prudish? Then you ask yourself “how do I keep it that way”?

Yes, this is the key. I'm not sure what the rest of your post is about - it says (correctly) that people are people and the current state of things is all that makes humans different. In general, apart from possible dysgenics and population boom from welfare type artificial lifestyles, it sorta suggests that nothing really matters but when and where you are born. It's somewhat true.

My point in saying this, because I generally agree with all of your posts and I think you agree with mine, is to point out that it's very rare for people to both go and find a place where a woman needs you and is prudish, and you can keep it that way. I haven't "sat around" for most of my life, in fact, I've done most things that all the self improvement guys say one needs to do. I don't find the ROI or the youth in the west, so I realized near peak or prime I'd have to go to other places. It's funny to think you could be a high achiever and then be asked to leave your country due to such poor quality of women and the people surrounding, influencing them. That's what the forum is mostly about, so I won't apologize for posting about it occasionally.

will be happy to date/marry a guy of average but stable means

They may not be "happy" but they will do it, which in many ways is what Sandalwood's point is. Having seen what I have seen and knowing what I know now (and I don't hold it against them, it's just who or what they are), if you leave anything up to women it will result in chaos or more problems/headaches, so it doesn't really matter.

- once the women hit some sort of average/stable resource level themselves, their expectations rise wildly; if they can't find a total stud, they'd rather be single.

Yes, that's what I was saying. What's worse is that they'll forego their value years to both try to double dip AND shoot higher than reasonable, thus making their late 20s and 30s a joke for other men to consider. One of the things that's worst about the whole situation is that they have zero insight into just how invisible they are at 40+, while guys are pretty much the same, and worth more, from 30-60.

 

[Sandalwood Peak]

Yes, this is the key. I'm not sure what the rest of your post is about - it says (correctly) that people are people and the current state of things is all that makes humans different. In general, apart from possible dysgenics and population boom from welfare type artificial lifestyles, it sorta suggests that nothing really matters but when and where you are born. It's somewhat true.

My point in saying this, because I generally agree with all of your posts and I think you agree with mine, is to point out that it's very rare for people to both go and find a place where a woman needs you and is prudish, and you can keep it that way. I haven't "sat around" for most of my life, in fact, I've done most things that all the self improvement guys say one needs to do. I don't find the ROI or the youth in the west, so I realized near peak or prime I'd have to go to other places. It's funny to think you could be a high achiever and then be asked to leave your country due to such poor quality of women and the people surrounding, influencing them. That's what the forum is mostly about, so I won't apologize for posting about it occasionally.

They may not be "happy" but they will do it, which in many ways is what Sandalwood's point is. Having seen what I have seen and knowing what I know now (and I don't hold it against them, it's just who or what they are), if you leave anything up to women it will result in chaos or more problems/headaches, so it doesn't really matter.

Yes, that's what I was saying. What's worse is that they'll forego their value years to both try to double dip AND shoot higher than reasonable, thus making their late 20s and 30s a joke for other men to consider. One of the things that's worst about the whole situation is that they have zero insight into just how invisible they are at 40+, while guys are pretty much the same, and worth more, from 30-60.

The thing I take issue with, or better yet don’t understand is when you say you’re not rewarded for your hard work in the west, especially in the woman department. In many ways this is absolutely true but on the other hand it’s a counterproductive mentality. All you need is one woman, regardless of where she comes from. As long as you find one then you’re set. Would it be better if you were able to get the cream of the crop? Yes, but those are not our circumstances.

My post is kind of like the movie titanic. Do you want to be Jack, a guy who wants women to be intrigued by him? Or do you want to be the fiancé who tries to force the stupid broad to be his wife? In real life the fiancé is the guy who has the family. Just like the movie-Jack gets nothing.

I just feel it’s wrong to look at a woman as a “reward” or a “gift” to you. Like I said, most women are dumb witted and fairly useless. Us guys just need to catch one like you’re hunting a hog with a rope and start pumping out those kids. The kids are what is going to make living with her tolerable. As a man, this is what you truly want. You want kids and you want dependents to provide for. Anything else, like a woman’s googly eyes towards you is secondary. This is the traditional way.

 

[Blade Runner]

All you need is one woman, regardless of where she comes from. As long as you find one then you’re set. Would it be better if you were able to get the cream of the crop? Yes, but those are not our circumstances.

Yes. Are you saying that one should go elsewhere for this, or just settle for one, as you seem to suggest below.

I just feel it’s wrong to look at a woman as a “reward” or a “gift” to you. Like I said, most women are dumb witted and fairly useless. Us guys just need to catch one like you’re hunting a hog with a rope and start pumping out those kids. The kids are what is going to make living with her tolerable. As a man, this is what you truly want. You want kids and you want dependents to provide for. Anything else, like a woman’s googly eyes towards you is secondary. This is the traditional way.

We generally see eye to eye, as I said. The problem in the modern day is that the totality of the marriage isn't what it used to be, where you could relatively disregard the woman in the way you suggest; now you pay a far greater price in threats and bad behavior. As far as the kids making things tolerable, that's a very questionable statement. The kids usually make the woman even more neurotic, and it's not like the kids raise themselves.

 

[Sandalwood Peak]

Yes. Are you saying that one should go elsewhere for this, or just settle for one, as you seem to suggest below.

We generally see eye to eye, as I said. The problem in the modern day is that the totality of the marriage isn't what it used to be, where you could relatively disregard the woman in the way you suggest; now you pay a far greater price in threats and bad behavior. As far as the kids making things tolerable, that's a very questionable statement. The kids usually make the woman even more neurotic, and it's not like the kids raise themselves.

I support men going anywhere and everywhere they feel they can succeed at. You should definitely not be living anywhere where you got the courts and men roaming around wishing to cuck everyone, like in the city. It goes back to what I said. It’s not about hoping a woman is faithful to you, it’s about making sure it doesn’t happen in the first place.

Like you beautifully said; the collapse has already happened. All we’re doing now is surviving.

 

[Bizet]

This thread reminds me of this scene from one of my all-time favourite films...

 

[Chiosboy90]

Like I said, most women are dumb witted and fairly useless. Us guys just need to catch one like you’re hunting a hog with a rope and start pumping out those kids.

Quality post! Of course it is exaggerated, but at its core, the statement is true. Outside of this forum, I dont think we could talk like this without getting banned (or in prison).

 

[MusicForThePiano]

Bust your ass for your people, not for material. Struggle for your children, if you don't have any, start planning to. Legacy is the only thing that matters. Find other dads and network with them. Whatever your work is, it should be for your kin foremost, and your people just after that. Don't be a people pleaser, do what you have to do to survive, and when you are surviving, do what you have to do to thrive. So many White Christians are disconnected from one another. Wear yourself out working for a bigger community of your own kind that helps itself out, but only do whatever is necessary in the menial jobs of the system.

With enough male brains working together on something, it isn't hard to figure out a way to make a business out of it and make it self-sustaining. Keep it under 50 employees and no government thugs will attempt to force their "change" on it.

 

[It_Is_My_Time]

This thread reminds me of this scene from one of my all-time favourite films...

One of my favorite concepts from a movie of all time. "I want the job with the least amount of responsibility". 1999 is when this movie came out, and it gets more and more true every year as things get worse and worse.

 

[It_Is_My_Time]

The one thing, and it is a big reason I am happy I don't have children yet, is the advice is to have kids and then work your butt off to provide for them. What about the fact that everything in the west is going right off the cliff and turning yourself into a slave so that your kids can have a decent life will barely make a dent in the hellscape of a world they will inherit?

My plan is to do as little as possible, while making as much as possible and then semi-retiring/fully retiring, moving some place that might offer a better future, and then having kids. Yes, I will be a very old dad, but it seems to give my future children the best opportunity.

I'm not saying my path is right or best for you, just some food for thought.

 

[Sandalwood Peak]

The one thing, and it is a big reason I am happy I don't have children yet, is the advice is to have kids and then work your butt off to provide for them. What about the fact that everything in the west is going right off the cliff and turning yourself into a slave so that your kids can have a decent life will barely make a dent in the hellscape of a world they will inherit?

My plan is to do as little as possible, while making as much as possible and then semi-retiring/fully retiring, moving some place that might offer a better future, and then having kids. Yes, I will be a very old dad, but it seems to give my future children the best opportunity.

I'm not saying my path is right or best for you, just some food for thought.

Have you considered other options? Like cryogenically freezing yourself in a makeshift meat freezer?

I feel you’re making a mistake but I wish you luck. I tried cheating time before. Instead of improving myself I decided to wait for a sunnier day. Still reeling from the consequences.

 

[It_Is_My_Time]

Have you considered other options? Like cryogenically freezing yourself in a makeshift meat freezer?

I feel you’re making a mistake but I wish you luck. I tried cheating time before. Instead of improving myself I decided to wait for a sunnier day. Still reeling from the consequences.

I didn't say "don't improve yourself", just follow what makes you fulfilled. I think 20 years ago the advice of "suck it up and provide a better future for your children" was solid advice. My parents were able to do that, as were my grandparents and so on. We just can no longer take for granted that we still live in a vacuum and if we work hard our kids will have a better future. The future is very dim, especially in the USA. Heck, the present is very dim, I shudder to think of the future.

I work in a field I find no joy or pleasure in at all. It leads to deep depression at times, and I am just constantly counting the days until I think I can get out of the field. I can't imagine being of this mindset and trying to create a happy/stable home for children. I couldn't do it. At the same time, I don't see anything else that interests me enough to jump ship. Everything is full of sky high barriers, such as DEI hiring practices, criminally high education prices, unstable work environment/economy, and the constant influx of change making the job more and more challenging.

I guess, all in all, my advice is to find your path. The days of just sucking it up and your kids will live better is over. You can still suck it up, be miserable, and your kids survive but also be miserable. That isn't how I want to live and that isn't how I want my children to live either.

If anyone sees a specific path out of this cyclical nightmare, please feel free to share. If there is a field/investment that escapes these pitfalls, I am all ears. It may not work for me, but at least I will feel comfortable giving advice to young people again. When young people ask me for advice today, I tell them medical, because that is one field that will only grow. I wouldn't want to do it myself, so maybe that is the path forward for many others.

I guess it just goes back to, is it worth it to bust your ass? Depends 100% on the rewards of doing so. I know people who have been rewarded for it and others who have been taken advantage of. I have been taken advantage of, so I am now at a point where I am doing as little as possible and counting the days. It isn't a great way to live, but it beats working on my few vacation days, losing vacation days, and waking up at 4:00 AM to get to the office first, all to get 0 promotions in 20 years.

 

[SeekingTruth]

One of my favorite concepts from a movie of all time. "I want the job with the least amount of responsibility". 1999 is when this movie came out, and it gets more and more true every year as things get worse and worse.

This "responsibility burden" is very real in the workplace. The system will try to pull every ounce it can from your soul and body to extract monetary value from you.

Children increase this burden but help in the mindset that you now have a greater purpose for the sacrifice. This helped me a lot.

To the poster above waiting until things are financially perfect...don't. My biggest regret was this career chasing mentality and almost cost me a family. I guess it was supposed to happen that way since this suffering pushed me to Christianity.