audreyh1
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
+1My answer to your question is 'no'.
+1My answer to your question is 'no'.
"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.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.
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!Nobody, except my children and my spouse, have a "right" to my labor.
So, again, to Robert Heinlein:
Or, see the signature element below.
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.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.
It's a sickness, I know. He's the only "philosopher" I've read!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!
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.
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.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?
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.Extend this logic, and you also have a moral obligation to spread your superior DNA around by fathering as many children as you can.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
Most folks who are of the caliber to get into med school wouldn't flake.
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.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.
.....
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...
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.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 said: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.
Considering that she has had a subsidy about equal to her earnings, I'd say she has a "moral obligation" to work more.
youbet said: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.