Why It Is Impossible To Raise Your Standard Of Living Working A Job

Comments (8)

Why It Is Impossible To Raise Your Standard Of Living Working A Job

By: Walt F.J. Goodridge

Everything in nature has been endowed with what it needs to survive. There is no living thing that isn't inherently equipped with the skills and abilities it needs to secure its continued existence. Whether through instinct, size, camouflage or speed, no gazelle, lion or giraffe has to go to trade school to learn how to survive. That's the beauty of the divine plan. We, as humans, are part of this plan and each one of us is given something that sets us apart from everyone else; something that we can use to ensure our own survival. Before industrialization sent hoards of us to the cities to work on assembly lines in factories, we all used something we did or owned to exchange for the things we couldn't do or didn't own. Experts say that before the Industrial Revolution, 80% of us where entrepreneurs.

Unfortunately, because we now live in a capitalistic society, we rarely have a chance to be rewarded for the extraordinary potential we bring to the universe. Instead, we are rewarded for the lowest common denominator--something we share with just about everybody else; our time and your presence. Think about it. You're paid simply for showing up to a job for a certain number of hours to do a job which somebody else could just as easily do; It's this replaceability that ensures that the big business-which competes on price-can stay in business. If people were compensated based on the real value of their "talents" big business couldn't survive.

So even if he or she wanted to, no employer can or will ever pay you what you're worth. You can beg for a raise every year, work more hours, or go on a constant quest for the next higher paying position in an effort to improve your life, but conditions will invariably stay the same. The only way to really raise your standard of living is to leverage your talents, your gifts, your interests and your hobbies to create a product or service that you can sell to increasing numbers of people and free yourself from the cycle of trading time for money. You need to become a passionpreneur and turn your passion into profit!

By taking this bold step, you'll join the ranks of a unique group of people I call "Passionpreneurs."

Passionpreneurs are men and women of every age, ethnic group, educational background, profession and religion. They include housewives, inventors and artists. They are a diverse group of people from every corner of the globe. However, Passionpreneurs do share one common trait: they've all found something they enjoy doing and have decided to keep doing it.

More significantly, not only do Passionpreneurs enjoy what they do, they get paid to do it! They've found the hidden value in their talents, interests or pastimes, offer that value to the world in the form of unique products and services, and do so for profit. In other words, they've created businesses that allow them to make money doing what they love. As a result, many have walked away from frustrating jobs to live what I call a Passion -Centered lifestyle. They set their own schedules and control their time. They live according to their own personal value system rather than someone else's. Furthermore, Passionpreneurs experience the joy, empowerment and unique satisfaction of being compensated for being who they choose to be, honoring what they believe in, and doing something they feel divinely called to do.

So why should you become a passionpreneur? I can think of no greater case one can make than simply happiness.

You have permission to publish this article electronically or in print, free of charge, as long as the bylines are included. A courtesy copy of your publication would be appreciated.

About The Author

Walt F.J. Goodridge is a career coach known as the "Passion Prophet." He is author of 10 books including Turn Your Passion Into Profit. Walt helps people become "passionpreneurs" making money in business doing what they love! Take his revealing personality test at www.passionprofit.com to discover or your Passion Profile or mailto: Walt@passionprofit.com


Mubina 16.10.2006. 14:17

Why It Is Impossible To Raise Your Standard Of Living Working A Job? Why It Is Impossible To Raise Your Standard Of Living Working A Job


Admin 16.10.2006. 14:17

I work a job for tax reasons.
Some people "work a job" because they enjoy what they do.
I guess you are referring to people who lack the capacity to control their own circumstances, in which case the answer is:-
Working a job, by definition, means your efforts make a profit for someone else.
There are three primary reasons why most people find it difficult to advance:-
1. lack of education/skills
2. paying rent
3. owning a car.
I guess you could add "frivolous spending".
Thank you.


Meranda 30.04.2013. 07:26

What were some goals and pursuits of women in the early 1800's? I know some were to get jobs and be treated as equal, but what else?

Also links would be helpful if you find good ones.
Okay, what about the women in Frankenstein then?


Admin 30.04.2013. 07:26

The answer depends very much on the situation (social/economic class, marital status, location, character and intelligence etc.) of the woman.

Very broadly, the roles of the sexes were more sharply differentiated than they are now. More specifically:
...Women of the lower class, like their men, worked inside and outside the home at whatever was needed to earn a living and manage the household. Many of them, both before and after marriage, worked as domestic or farm servants. The 'goals and pursuits' of such a family were likely to be limited to survival and, if possible, an improvement in the standard of life for them and their children.
...Women of the middle class had, of course, household duties as well but managed them with the aid of servants - ranging from a single maid to a full household staff. Such women could, and many did, run businesses - schools for girls, shops, dressmaking establishments. A few even went into farming. Authorship was (from the 18thC on) a career open to women - everyone has read Jane Austen, but she was only one of many.
...Women with leisure, with independent fortunes of their own or the wives/daughters of men with one, were of course debarred from the career in public life which was open to their brothers. That did not stop them exercising important influence in politics, religious affairs and allied matters. Their work in those fields at times amounted to a full-time career, though obviously unpaid and not officially recognised. There were so many women involved that it is impossible to give a full list; I will mention only Elizabeth Fry, Harriet Martineau, Deborah Cavendish, Hester Stanhope and Mary Wollstonecraft. The minority of women who owned landed estates in their own name (e.g. Anne Lister) worked at managing them just as did the men.

The stereotype - that women of any class just sat at home and raised babies - is, as stereotypes often are, based on such a tiny selection of the facts as to be misleading.

Hope this helps.


Catherine???????? 13.03.2013. 11:29

Why do conservatives always get terrified when I point this fact out? That trickle-down economics doesn't work for two reasons: that "job creator" and "rich" are not one in the same, and in fact most small business owners don't make more than $250,000 (the average income for a small business owner is $150,000), and so lowering taxes on the rich and raising them on the middle class as Reagan did hurts small business. The second reason is that there is a difference between personal income and corporate income, and corporate income is what is used by companies to create jobs, not personal income. This has been demonstrated to be true in several countries, where lower personal income tax had no measurable effect on job growth.


Conservatives often cower to me when I challenge this position. Does anyone know why that is? Can anyone explain why conservatives, when I point this fact out, panic?
@aunt jemima: Tax cuts for actual job creators, regardless of how much they make, and a flat tax rate for everyone else. Of course, no one ever even discusses this possibility so, meh.
@Taylor: Hahahahaha, typical conservative with a spine of spaghetti.


Admin 13.03.2013. 11:29

There are only two kinds of conservatives.
1. Those who benefit at the cost of the middle class
2. Those with practically nothing who vote against their own better interests because they're going to be rich one day too and they wouldn't want to do anything that would hurt their ability to amass great wealth.

I wonder if those wannabes know they have a one in 700 chance at having a million dollars in investable assets? Of course you can't live very well with only a million. No worries though. There's a one in 86,420 chance they'll have 50 million and that's a lot better odds than the lottery!

"What is the alternative ? Trickle UP ?"
Some of you are so young, you weren't even alive when we had a powerful middle class. Reagan implemented "trickle down" in the '80s, mostly '86 and '87.

I'm a small business owner and as such have been an employer since 1979. When our economy crashed in 2008, I was forced to lay off some of my employees. When should I have hired them back? When I got a "trickle down" tax cut? Or when demand for my products and services made it impossible for me to operate without more help? I don't think anyone calls it "demand side" economics but I've heard terms like "classical", "standard" and "common sense" economics.

Maybe you remember last year (from the news) that America's corporations were at an all time record for the amount of cash they'd socked away in reserve? (They're using the same thinking I use with my little business.) They know America needs jobs but their responsibility is to stock holders, not out-of-work Americans. At least for right now, our government isn't failing because they haven't lowered corporate tax rates. Our government is failing because it lives from one crisis to the next.

Give me something, anything I can count on for the next four or five years and I'll know whether I can hire or not. I blame Obama, Boehner, Reid and everyone else who has a hand in the fiscal side of our economy but mostly I blame the tea partiers.

@YB Logical:
Obama had nothing to do with Bernanke's decision to pump cash into the economy. The Fed's mandate doesn't come from the sitting president. You're mixing up monetary policy and fiscal policy. The sad truth is, the tea partiers are blocking a better approach for job creation, an approach that yields a much higher multiplier and long term quality-of-life benefits as well: Infrastructure.
We know from history that improving infrastructure and education yield the most benefit, not buying treasuries and mbs's.


Chuck Norris 10.11.2008. 03:47

Do you believe Obama's "take from the rich and give to the poor" proposal will work? ? Will it lead to unemployment? Proof - Best answer should have proof from past governments that flourished with this reasoning. Proof from reliable sources like the LA Times. And thumbs up to all good answers.

Chuck Norris

Admin 10.11.2008. 03:47

History has shown this to be a bad idea. The concept is fine, provide for those that have less than others. It's charity. And it works as long as it's done freely and privately. The problem is that it is impossible to draw lines that will be effective in a government mandated charity system.
First, while government can do things for us, they NEVER do ANYTHING efficiently or fairly, ever.
Second it removes the drive to better oneself. When government forces you to yield part, or all, of your pay, and they decide how it is to be distributed, while others without money can collect from government, why work? If I work a second job for extra money only to have the government take it away there's no incentive to have that job. Sorry, but brain surgery is worth more than rolling pizza dough. That's just the way it goes. Being a surgeon is a tough job, endless schooling, stress, people's lives at stake, special skills, it should pay more. When it doesn't there's no point in becoming a surgeon.
So to insure that society has the services it requires government then forces people to perform these more advanced tasks without adequate compensation.
And who decides what standard of living we are entitled to? If we have 100 percent redistribution of wealth for example, where do we draw a line between needs and wants? If government is to provide for those that cannot provide for themselves what exactly are they entitled to? Running water, electricity, healthy food, cable TV, an iPod?
The "rich" represent the most money donated to charity, the most businesses where the rest of us find employment. If government forces them to yield their earnings there is no advantage in running a business or hiring employees.
Then we have to define "rich." Most of the time this is based on a person's income. Here this can be most disastrous. We all have different standard of living goals. Suppose a person with the income label as rich has a high cost of living. They have an expensive house or live in an expensive part of the Country or have kids in expensive schools, etc. Are they to be penalized for being rich? Some people we consider rich are very charitable. Are they to be lumped in? If we consider net income after taxes and living expenses versus gross income many of those 'rich' may not be so. But they could be forced to reduce their standard of living because government declares so.
It has failed everywhere it's been tested. The current welfare system already shows these causes and effects to be true. Moving to more redistribution of wealth will lead to increased unemployment, outsourcing, companies leaving the Country, and poverty.
In a classless society, all are poor.
Taxation can run at a level of equilibrium. People are generally willing to pay some taxes in exchange for the services government provides. We are well above that line. Increase taxes, on anyone, rich, middle, poor, it doesn't matter, takes more money out of circulation and places it with the government.
Remember companies don't pay taxes. Electricity, labor, raw materials, office supplies, building maintenance, and so on are all costs of operating a business. Taxation is no different. Those costs are ALL passed on to the consumer. Raising taxes on a business will only raise the price of their product or service, prompt them to reduce employees, more outsourcing, closing down, or leaving the Country.
The best way to handle this is to drastically decrease government spending, thereby reducing taxation and debt, which reduces the cost of living for all people. When money goes further the poor are no longer as poor and the rich have more money to spend which means more jobs and more money in circulation, also helping the poor.
It's worth noting that this is not likely to become reality any time soon. While Obama and many of is cohorts in Congress support the idea there is no specific plan to implement any such process.


Write a comment

* = required field





* Yes No