Comment by sirsinsalot 3 days ago
Relative hardship comparisons generally suck.
"hah you think retail is hard, imagine working for a drug gang in Africa! You'd go back to retail in a snap!"
Stress is stress. It makes you unwell. The remuneration isn't the point.
Yes but you can't demote the stress element because the remuneration element is larger. They're not dependent variables at the point the stress is felt.
Stress isn't less stressful just because you get to take a holiday afterwards. A broken leg doesn't hurt less when you break it because you have health insurance.
Sure,the duration of the stress may differ, but that's a different variable too.
Can a millionaire experience the same or higher levels of stress than a cashier? Absolutely. Can a cashier and millionaire be in a position of high, inescapable stress for prolonged periods? Yes.
Stop comparing relative hardship based on your own bias... Unless you promise to never complain about anything you eat or drink ever again because of "starving African children"
>Yes but you can't demote the stress element because the remuneration element is larger. They're not dependent variables at the point the stress is felt.
GP just explained how, though. Higher remuneration = eventual recovery period. Focusing on the stress is only human, so you can't be faulted for that, but considering the comparative situations holistically, it is objectively more advantageous to get paid more for similarly, or perhaps even more, stressful situations.
The remuneration is certainly a large part of the point, because a SWE who makes mid six figures and burns out from a high stress job has accumulated enough money to not have to work again for awhile, potentially ever, and can rest and recuperate. A cashier on minimum wage working a similarly high stress job can't ever stop working because they're never not going to be living paycheck to paycheck.