Do "gifted" people have a moral obligation to work?

[audreyh1]

My answer to your question is 'no'.

+1

 

[Nords]

The background: In recent conversations with my father, he's expressed the position that someone who is "gifted" or might have higher aptitude for success, has some what of a moral obligation to do a job that is deemed more worthwhile, or more important. The discussion stemmed from my desire to retire early. He feels that it is greedy or self-centered for someone to retire early if they have the potential to impact events or people. I am by no means trying to toot my own horn here or paint myself as a Jack Bauer, but that's my father's (and probably most dad's) view of his son.
I'm sure some in this community have considered whether they're "letting anyone down" or not "living up to their potential" by pursuing FIRE.
Just like to hear some of the views.

"Thanks, Dad, I sure am gifted. I'm going to spend the first few months of my ER reconnecting with family and renewing our marriage and putting some more time into our kids' futures. Then I'm going to take a few more months to figure out how to maximize my human capital over the rest of my lifespan. Part of that will be giving back and paying it forward.
I know that I can always get a job. But just jumping from active duty straight into a bridge career won't give me much time for reflection, let alone learning. I'd like to see what my creative juices can produce once I give them the chance to recover. Hey, I have an idea. When I figure out an entrepreneurial business plan, would you be interested in getting in on the ground floor for only $100K?"

It's possible that your father is only saying "I love you" by being concerned that you'll end up homeless, and he may be especially concerned if you happen to be responsible for raising his grandkids. A more cynical perspective would be that he's dealing with envy, regret, or even jealousy.

My father actually nudged me down the road to ER, although I don't think he appreciated how it would pay off. OTOH my father-in-law has been quite alarmed by the whole idea of his daughter supporting that no-good freeloading slug with whom she's been sleeping, and the less he knows about our lifestyle the happier he is.

Nobody, except my children and my spouse, have a "right" to my labor.
So, again, to Robert Heinlein:
Or, see the signature element below.

Y'know, I used to think that I was a Heinlein geek, but I bow in respect to your ability to come up with those quotes!

 

[kumquat]

Warning: this post may be relavent or not depending on your country. Mine is Canada.

Depends on your definition of "gifted". A friend's wife went to medical shool, paid in tuition about 10% of the cost of her education. Started working at about 25. By then the [-]government[/-] country had invested the better part of $500K in her. Practised as a GP for about 15 years and made a good buck. Then she entered a residency program for about 5 years. While she was not making the $ she had been, she was paid about $75K/yr to learn more. She has practised the speciality for about 10 years and is now retiring at ~55.

Considering that she has had a subsidy about equal to her earnings, I'd say she has a "moral obligation" to work more. I'd be right pissed if someone, who might have worked as a physician for many years, missed an opening in med school (with its subsidies) to allow her to work for 25 years total.

Sure, to get into med school, you usually are academically "gifted". However, once in, you are financially "gifted". Pay back what you take.

 

[samclem]

Considering that she has had a subsidy about equal to her earnings, I'd say she has a "moral obligation" to work more. I'd be right pissed if someone, who might have worked as a physician for many years, missed an opening in med school (with its subsidies) to allow her to work for 25 years total.

Sure, to get into med school, you usually are academically "gifted". However, once in, you are financially "gifted". Pay back what you take.

Seems like the Canadian taxpayers should have made the quid pro quo specific--a contract to work for so many years under specific conditions in exchange for the scholarship and the subsidy. Then everything is in plain sight and the folks willing to meet the obligations will take the money. Just like any other contract.

Y'know, I used to think that I was a Heinlein geek, but I bow in respect to your ability to come up with those quotes!

It's a sickness, I know. He's the only "philosopher" I've read!

 

[youbet]

That's an interesting example and counterpoint kumquat. I can't imagine how that doc could be forced to work longer, and in fact I don't think she should receive any bullying to do so. But, I can see how if most who receive that special training in Canada did RE, it would present an interesting situation.

 

[youbet]

Seems like the Canadian taxpayers should have made the quid pro quo specific--a contract to work for so many years under specific conditions in exchange for the scholarship and the subsidy. Then everything is in plain sight and the folks willing to meet the obligations will take the money. Just like any other contract.

That would be a contract that's tough to enforce. The doc would simply retire on the job by developing poor eyesight, a nervous twitch, memory lapses, etc., as he/she edged into late mid-age.

 

[audreyh1]

Putting aside ego, what prompts those who have attained a special position in history to work beyond the point of having their monetary needs satisfied?

Self-actualization: Their work is a labor of love (of the craft, challenges, pursuing a dream, self-expression, inspiration to create or solve problems, whatever) and their lives enriched by the experience. They work purely for the pleasure of it.

 

[audreyh1]

Extend this logic, and you also have a moral obligation to spread your superior DNA around by fathering as many children as you can.

I see I was beaten to it. I remember it being suggested, when I was growing up, that those of us with "superior genes" had a moral obligation to have children.

 

[jimbee]

The background: In recent conversations with my father, he's expressed the position that someone who is "gifted" or might have higher aptitude for success, has some what of a moral obligation to do a job that is deemed more worthwhile, or more important.

No!

 

[samclem]

That would be a contract that's tough to enforce. The doc would simply retire on the job by developing poor eyesight, a nervous twitch, memory lapses, etc., as he/she edged into late mid-age.

Well, if the government "owned" them and they couldn't/wouldn't practice medicine, then there would be other (terribly boring) government jobs for them to do. Somebody has to inspect the medical billing records, inspect the prison dispensaries, etc. Most folks who are of the caliber to get into med school wouldn't flake out deliberately, and if the government wants a payback they should ask for it.
The very best way to avoid all this of course is to not give scholarships with some vague expectation of repayment but instead to give school loans that must be repaid. Everybody understands exactly what that means--and that's what the concept of "money" is for.

 

[easysurfer]

Self-actualization: Their work is a labor of love (of the craft, challenges, pursuing a dream, self-expression, inspiration to create or solve problems, whatever) and their lives enriched by the experience. They work purely for the pleasure of it.

+1

Why climb a mountain? Because it is there.

 

[okapi]

Nope.When I left my job I got away from alot of unmoral people.To each his own.

 

[Free To Canoe]

Use your talents in different ways. Like volunteering with a charity or helping people you love but never had time to help before. I think those who are really talented can make more of a difference once released from the shackles of paid employment.

ERing is how talented people are able to contribute to society in the best way. Hence, the logic behind the "Genius Grants"


MacArthur Fellows Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The MacArthur Fellows Program or MacArthur Fellowship (nicknamed the Genius Grant) is an award given by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation each year to typically 20 to 40 United States citizens or residents, of any age and working in any field, who "show exceptional merit and promise for continued and enhanced creative work".
According to the Foundation's website, "the fellowship is not a reward for past accomplishment, but rather an investment in a person's originality, insight, and potential."

 

[youbet]

Most folks who are of the caliber to get into med school wouldn't flake.

Obviously you haven't lived in the Chicago area........

 

[MasterBlaster]

The morality police have new requirements that all ER's must report back to work.

They also have their ongoing requirement that "excess" nesteggs are to be forfeited to those with a better lobbying organization.

 

[Urchina]

My personal belief is that we each have a moral obligation to our community to support, enhance, and develop it to the best of our abilities.

Whether or not you do that while drawing pay for your work is up to you.

 

[kumquat]

That's an interesting example and counterpoint kumquat. I can't imagine how that doc could be forced to work longer, and in fact I don't think she should receive any bullying to do so. But, I can see how if most who receive that special training in Canada did RE, it would present an interesting situation.

I can think of one way. If she had to borrow or otherwise pay for the training, she'd have to work to pay it back. Simple problem, simple solution.

 

[truenorth418]

By leaving my job, I opened the door to some newcomer to take it that needed it more. In fact, my closing salary would have afforded a couple of newcomers. I worked hard for my financial independence, paid plenty in taxes, made an impression on my colleagues and direct reports. I don't feel like I owe anybody anything.

 

[brewer12345]

Who can even say that they will have the opportunity to work up to their "gifted potential?" Beyond the shadow of a doubt, for the last 4 years I have been engaged in a job that is was beneath my supposed greatest potential. The "greatest potential" jobs simply are not out there for me.

In any case, the whole preposition that you owe the universe just because you are not dumb and should therefore work ntil death is preposterous.

 

[naggz]

.....
Considering that she has had a subsidy about equal to her earnings, I'd say she has a "moral obligation" to work more. I'd be right pissed if someone, who might have worked as a physician for many years, missed an opening in med school (with its subsidies) to allow her to work for 25 years total...

Is the value of her 25 years only measured in the dollars spent in training, or measured by her salary?

If she saved or extended others lives in her 25 years, didn't taxpayers get a good return on their money?

 

[kumquat]

Is the value of her 25 years only measured in the dollars spent in training, or measured by her salary?

If she saved or extended others lives in her 25 years, didn't taxpayers get a good return on their money?

All doctors 'save or extend' some lives. The value the taxpayer got is propotional to what another worthy candidate for med school would have done.

If the cost of her training was spent on someone who could have been, like another doctor friend, still practising after 50 years, no they did not. If the training could have gone to some who practised for 26, 27, or 35 years, then no, they did not.

If she had practised for 1 year and saved other lives would you think the taxpayers got a good return?

 

[Meadbh]

Warning: this post may be relavent or not depending on your country. Mine is Canada.

Depends on your definition of "gifted". A friend's wife went to medical shool, paid in tuition about 10% of the cost of her education. Started working at about 25. By then the [-]government[/-] country had invested the better part of $500K in her. Practised as a GP for about 15 years and made a good buck. Then she entered a residency program for about 5 years. While she was not making the $ she had been, she was paid about $75K/yr to learn more. She has practised the speciality for about 10 years and is now retiring at ~55.

Considering that she has had a subsidy about equal to her earnings, I'd say she has a "moral obligation" to work more. I'd be right pissed if someone, who might have worked as a physician for many years, missed an opening in med school (with its subsidies) to allow her to work for 25 years total.

Sure, to get into med school, you usually are academically "gifted". However, once in, you are financially "gifted". Pay back what you take.

So, how do you value the lives she saved over 25 years in practice, plus her (underpaid) at least 7 years of residency?

Some provinces, e.g. Quebec, have tried, and failed, to compel physicians to work in undeserved areas for lengthy periods of time. There's this little document called the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (section 6, mobility) that guarantees all Canadian citizens the right to live and work (or not) wherever they want to, etc, etc.

You could make a better argument by citing my case, in which I completed medical school and nine years of postgraduate training before arriving in Canada. I am grateful for the opportunities I have had in Canada, but I do not feel any obligation to work in my home country as it could not provide me with good career prospects that would use my potential and provide meaningful rewards. I am happy to make that considerable donation of a "ready-made" physician to this great country.

Investment in education by society is a common good; sometimes it will pay off handsomely, sometimes it will be break even, and sometimes it will be a net financial loss. Overall, society benefits. To compel individuals to decades of service based on this is a form of indentured servitude.

I also respect your right to ER and to take full advantage of publicly funded health and other social services which you and I are both paying for.

 

[ShortInSeattle]

Reminds me of some of the attitude I got when DH and I decided not to have kids. When you make a choice that will bring you happiness but it flies in the face of how others live their lives, a certain percentage will get huffy about it.

DH and I have the resources and aptitude to be good parents. Some folks use this as a kind of cudgel to beat us with. "You're being selfish." "You are turning your back on the most important thing in life...."

I can see how that same mindset could be used to criticize ER.

I tend to be mild mannered but this kind of nonsense just burns my cheese. We each get exactly one life. Critics can spend their own however they'd like. They don't get to spend other people's lives.

Some people won't be happy unless you die at your desk under a pile of accomplishments they find worthy. No thanks!

SIS

 

[youbet]

Considering that she has had a subsidy about equal to her earnings, I'd say she has a "moral obligation" to work more.

Wow. If she had paid for all of her own tuition and expenses while in medical school, instead of receiving much of it in subsidies, at 55 yo she'd still be short of break-even. Not sure how compensation for med folks works up there, but obviously if she was going to repay the subsidies she'd have to earn a lot more over her career than she did.

 

[Meadbh]

Wow. If she had paid for all of her own tuition and expenses while in medical school, instead of receiving much of it in subsidies, at 55 yo she'd still be short of break-even. Not sure how compensation for med folks works up there, but obviously if she was going to repay the subsidies she'd have to earn a lot more over her career than she did.

Here are the data. Based on gross earnings, assuming hers were average, the subsidy would be equivalent to just over 2 years of full time work.

http://www.cihi.ca/CIHI-ext-portal/...orkforce/workforce/physicians/RELEASE_15DEC11