posted
I'm not aware of anyone who fits this scenario, so this is a real hypothetical question. Curious to see the response to it.
Where I say "you" I mean "you and your spouse" if you are married, or if you're not, that it will become "you and your spouse" after you do, if you do.
Suppose you had the choice, to either earn $10,000 a month for the next twenty years in your job, business, or self-employment, or else to receive $20,000 a month for the next twenty years from a wealthy benefactor who stipulates that you don't earn any other money, and you don't increase volunteer work beyond what you're currently doing unless you happen to get a ward or stake calling that requires you to take some time for that.
Which scenario would be more pleasing to you?
[ March 20, 2011, 09:44 AM: Message edited by: Randy ]
Posts: 3371 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Idealistic: I favor the first choice, as well as many of the billion of other choices out there that are not the 2nd choice. Because allowing someone unrighteous dominion over you has got to be almost as bad, if not worse, than trying to have it over someone in the first place.
Practical: Anyone demanding someone NOT work, has a screw loose. Entering into restrictive contracts with such folks will not end well.
posted
edited to add: The following was a response to Shane, and also a response to LoudmouthMormon before he added the "Practical" portion.
Well OK, I hear you. Perhaps this was a poorly-designed hypothetical, because I was thinking more about the free money and less about the lack of freedom and unrighteous dominion. I added in the stipulations to avoid the "I'll-have-my-cake-and-eat-it-too" option. I wanted more of an either-or response.
[ March 20, 2011, 11:31 AM: Message edited by: Randy ]
Posts: 3371 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Practical? No, the purpose of hypothetical questions is not to see how it can be practically done, but to get to the heart of a matter. I'm aware that it's not possible in the real world. That's not what I'm seeking.
Posts: 3371 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My biggest question on this is whether the wealthy benefactor is going to withhold employment taxes from that $20K. If he is, and as long as I get a reasonable amount of freedom in choosing my service projects, I'll take the 20!
If he's not, I would first have to do some research regarding tax reporting before I could make a decision, but I probably would still take the 20 in the end.
Seriously, I do enjoy working, but the biggest thing I miss about being unemployed was having the freedom in my schedule to go and spend a day at the Bishop's Storehouse or to drop everything with no advance notice to go help move a new family into their home.
Either way, I'd be coming out waaaaaaaaaaaay ahead from where I am now in this scenario. The $10,000 option is still about a 400% raise with no changes to my workload or routine.
Posts: 1100 | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
When you take (or even borrow) money from anyone else, you become their servant, sometimes their prisoner, perhaps even their slave.
If I work for an employer or myself, typically all I give up to them is the time & energy involved in the performance of my job & compliance with whatever rules govern my job. I'm basically a free person with control over my family or social life, how I use my income, & most of all, my time.
If I'm given more each month than I need to support myself, but cannot have any other paying job or increase my volunteer work, what does thie benefactor want me to do with all the time I'll have on my hands?
Some philanthropist could give me enough to live on with the intent that I devote more time to volunteer work, helping people or worthy causes & making the world a better place. OTOH, this hypothetical donor wants exactly the opposite: for me to become dependent, unproductive, & indolent.
Is this supposed to be a metaphor for God's plan of salvation with us using our agency as opposed to the Adversary's plan where eternal life would be guaranteed with no effort, but we would have no agency?
Posts: 12824 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Depends on what qualifies as "volunteer work". I'm pretty sure I could find lots of useful and important things to do if I didn't have to earn money. Gardening, learning, fixing/building on my home and property, and teaching children and grandchildren, just to name a few.
Posts: 460 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Considering that I am waiting for the right time to do a specific project and my children will be out of the home before 20 years is up I'll have to go with the first option.
posted
Oooh. I misread that. I thought that a wealthy benefactor was going to give me 20K a month to quit my job and increase my charitable work.
Knowing that now, it's an easy question. And I'm still coming out ahead by taking the 10 a month and staying at my current job.
Posts: 1100 | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
When you say "Don't increase your volunteer work" beyond what you're currently doing, does that mean don't give any of the $20,000 to charity? Because in that case, I'll take the $10,000.
In fact, I think I'll take the $10,000 anyway. Because I'm a SAHM, so a $10,000 increase over $0 is huge, and I like it with no strings attached.
Posts: 5841 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
guess no one hear really BELIEVES that work is a blessing. I don't think any amount of money would make up for not being able to work for pay, and not being able to increase volunteering either. What would you do with your money and time?
Posts: 2177 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"guess no one hear really BELIEVES that work is a blessing."
I'm not seeing that. Just about everyone has chosen to work for the $10,000 rather than be idle, & have the freedom to choose how to use their time & energy.
Posts: 12824 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, man, there is plenty of work to be done that doesn't have any pay associated with it. Or does all of that fall under "volunteer work"? Does doing my family's laundry and painting the house and cleaning the windows and going on field trips with the kids and teaching them and giving rides to my friends who don't have a car all count as volunteer work? And if it does, and I'm doing all that stuff anyway, I can still do it, right?
Anyway, like I said, I'd rather have $10,000 with no strings attached than $20,000 with stipulations.
Posts: 5841 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you all for your input. Although the hypothetical question was poorly designed, you still had some valuable insights to share.
I asked the question because it seems that, for many people in this world, the more money you get, the better. For a few, it doesn't matter how you get it. But for most, I'm sure that it matters whether it is done legally or not. Beyond that, I'm not sure that people generally care how money is made.
My own point of view is like this.
Although I don't remember anything about the premortal existence, I think I know myself well enough to say that I came to this earth to be a contributor, not to be a taker.
So, in line with that premortal commitment, I have no choice but to choose the first scenario, with the $10,000 monthly, and would do it gladly.
Once again, I acknowledge that the scenario that I proposed is sheer fantasy. Just to get some thinking and communicating done.
Again, thanks.
[ March 21, 2011, 01:17 PM: Message edited by: Randy ]
Posts: 3371 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
like others, I'd want the first option- I would not want anyone else putting a limit on my service opportunities. THe joy in helping others is more important than the money gained. And someone that only "allowed" someone else to do ONLY church calling service wouldn't be a good example of the gospel imho.
posted
Let me think this through, and buck the trend.
Sundays 6:30 am until 3 or 4 depending on the Sunday, and perhaps a fireside that evening. That is about 10 hours. Tuesdays: 4 hours visiting, mutual and interviews. Tuesdays and Thursdays, reading tutor for my student at the elementary school. Another 3-4 hours. 4 hours a month home teaching my 5 families. About an hour every weekday answering emails and going through all that wonderful church mail. another 5 hours.
Visiting the 43 widows I have, "just like President Monson used to do."
That is 23 hours a week plus. Not including a week at girls camp, a week at scout camp, a couple of overnighters with the scouts this summer. Plus all the bishoprics (and Stake Presidencies) in the Bountiful Temple District just got asked to be set apart veil workers at the temple to help with the influx caused by the Ogden temple closing.
Option 2 would be very tempting. I could see my family more because I wouldn't be asked to do any more volunteering. I think I have just about maxed out.
posted
JennaDean: I didn't list my time to make anyone feel lazy. Sorry.
I wouldn't be "volunteering" all that time if it weren't for my calling.
The point I was trying to make is that if we pick option 1, perhaps instead of saying what we WOULD do, we should examine what we ARE doing. Nothing is stopping you from volunteering to your maximum potential right now. And if you were already volunteering to your max, option 2 would be the logical choice, wouldn't it?
What makes us think we would start volunteering more if we did select option 1? People being the way they are, would likely just continue with what they are doing. So why not select option number 2, and just be done with it?
Posts: 11540 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree ... except ... there are a lot of things I'm doing for my kids right now, that I won't be doing in twenty years. I do have plans to increase my volunteering as more of my time becomes free. So if I can't do that, what will I do?
The other question is whether or not giving any of that $20,000 a month to charity is considered "volunteering". Because if I'm not allowed to give it away, I'd feel too guilty taking it.
Posts: 5841 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with your first point. That is the problem with hypotheticals. I took the second option as volunteering a percentage of your free time not hours in the day.
Perhaps if you volunteer to be a room mother for one of your children, you are volunteering 100% of your free time now, and in 20 years, 100% of your free time may be 25 hours per week instead of the 2 hours it is today.
As to your second point, I took it as it is my money, I can do with it whatever I want.
posted
As I read the hypothetical it said you couldn't increase the volunteer work. Unless, as I read the hypothetical, your calling changed.
So, I was wondering in option 2, since I wouldn't be at work I would be helping around the house more and spending more time with the kids. Would that count as an increase in service, or is it specific to service outside the home (the traditional definition of service/volunteer work).
Also, with option 2 I see the possibility of going back to school, so would I be allowed to work with my fellow students in a helpful way?
So if I could perhaps start home schooling my kids and or going to college, I could very easily see myself choosing 2.
Posts: 10857 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I first mis-read the scenario, my plan had been to take the 20 grand and quit my job. That 40 hours a week currently spent pushing papers would then be completely available for more - and more varied - service opportunities.
When I realized that the hypothetical called for us to NOT increase our current level of service work as well as not work outside the home, then it becomes burdensome. Sure, I could find ways to fill that time that wouldn't be considered service, but very little of it would be in any way productive. And to get paid twice as much to do half as much (or less) sounds like one of those "too good to be true" situations.
I already know that if I were to ever win the lottery (which will never happen cause I don't play LOL), I would not quit working. I might give up the full time drudge and get a part time job working in a craft store or something like that, but I would not drop entirely out of the workforce. I enjoy working. I enjoy feeling productive. And I would want a paying job to act as a deflection shield against "friends" and family who would get overly curious as to how I could continue to live my lifestyle without a source of income. That second option feels very similar to me.
I didn't stop to do the math before, but that $20,000 a month works out to almost a quarter million a year. That's like hitting a $5 million lottery jackpot and taking the 20 year payout.
Posts: 1100 | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: What makes us think we would start volunteering more if we did select option 1? People being the way they are, would likely just continue with what they are doing. So why not select option number 2, and just be done with it?
Good point. It won't fit everyone, but I think it does fit a good portion of people.
Posts: 4946 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I read the scenarios I'd definitely take number two. Travel, camping, gardening and many more activities. Improve your education and so on.
It's 10K and maybe a few more from your employer, plus the hassles of dealing with an employer, vs 20k a month and no boss. Hard choice.
Posts: 2912 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
