""Geoff Zinderdine"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > But on the other hand, even you agree that there are a lot of people (not > > just Americans, but a lot of people in the world) who want money. For > some > > of these people, it is precisely money that brings them happiness. And > > who's to say that you can't have a happy career that also happens to > produce > > a lot of money? I don't see it as an either-or choice. > > You can, and I do. I also don't see it as an either or choice. I just > don't equate reaching the top management of a big company and having their > astronomical salaries as the summum bonum of existence.
Fine, like I said, if my arguments don't apply to you, then so be it. My point was that for quite a few people, reaching the top of the summit really is their sine-qua-non. Again, I would state the question again for anybody who's still reading this (not you, Geoff). Be honest with yourself. Be completely and totally honest with yourself. Will you be happy just being the technical box-slinger for a long time, and perhaps for the rest of your life? If the answer really is 'yes', then you can probably safely forgo the degree. But if you have even the slightest shred of doubt, I would counsel you to cover your bases. Again, this doesn't apply to you, Geoff, cuz I know what your answer is going to be. This applies to anybody else out there. > > > Sure, some rich > > people are unhappy. But go to the bad, poverty-stricken part of town, and > > you'll see some REALLY unhappy people. I volunteer for various charities, > > and I spent the holidays providing toys for needy people who couldn't > afford > > to buy simple gifts for their children. I was happy to help out, but > > that's some real misery I was looking at. > > These aren't the only two options. The vast middle ground between misery > and misery is where I want to live. I have learned more from my defeats > than from my successes and I have lived in those neighborhoods for much of > my life. They are a fertile ground. Actually, most studies have shown that the more money people get the happier they tend to be. Sure, the dh/d$ (where h = happiness) decreases over time, but it is still a positive number. Again, that's not to say that all rich people are happy, but they tend to be more happy on average than people who are not as rich, and much more happy than people who are poor. Don't get me wrong. I'm not counseling that people should drop everything to make more money. Obviously there is more to happiness than just money. But money does play a role. > > > Like I said, if you're happy with your lot, then God bless you. But > again, > > I don't see that business success and ethics is necessarily an either-or > > choice. You can be successful and ethical. > > > > And besides, I don't know that ethics has anything to do with this > argument. > > CCIE's can be just as unethical as anybody else. > > Yes of course they can, but that isn't the issue. The issue is what kind of > life you have in the upper echelons of management. Like in politics > however, you have to give up certain principles and worldviews in order to > succeed in most if not all corporate cultures. I value the principles that > I have which have more to do with working for the good of others over one's > own selfish needs more than I value the uncompromising pursuit of self > interest that is intrinsic in the corporate world. I would argue that if this is really a concern, then one excellent way to alleviate this problem (if it is a problem) is the higher up you go, the more charity work you do. Not that I'm trying to pat myself on the back, but that's exactly what I've done. Sure, you might be a tough bastard from 9-5, but after hours, with the extra money you've made, you're giving back to the community. If you say that working for the good of others is truly the goal here, then by being more successful and making more money, you have more to give to others. >The pursuit of > outrageous wealth is full of compromises I am unwilling to make. That said, > are there those that have kept true to their principles and become wealthy? > Of course. They have generally done it by *owning* companies, not managing > them. All of this discussion speaks again to people having to decide on a > path which fulfils them rather than merely applying statistical probability > to very important decisions. Forget about a strict adherance to principles. Let's talk about overall net good. Andrew Carnegie was an unbelievably tough businessman. But when he died, he gave all his money to public causes - i.e. Carnegie-Mellon University, much of the American public library system, etc. The net good that Carnegie gave to the world was, I believe, highly positive. John Rockefeller - also a rough and tumble businessman, maybe the roughest of all, but also founded Rockefeller University, the University of Chicago (one of the most elite colleges in the world), and the Rockefeller Foundation - which in the 1950's sponsored Norman Borlaug's Green Revolution that saved hundreds of millions of people from starvation (Borlaug won the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts). So if it's doing public good that concerns you, then the more successful you are, the more you have to give. Let's face it - it's not going to be easy to create a charitable foundation that helps millions of people the way the Rockefeller Foundation did if you're working for minimum wage. > > :) > > Geoff Zinderdine > CCIE #10410 Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=60311&t=59481 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
