I've still never thought an hour of my time with me doing NOTHING is worth more than a working man makes in an hour.
Regardless of how important my free time is to me, it's a yes or no answer.
Not a
"Well, $5 to do absolutely nothing isn't worth my time, because it's not as much as that guy doing manual labor makes in that same hour, or how much I make in an hour doing actual work."
I've never felt like my time doing NOTHING is worth as much as somebody else's time actually doing their job. It just seems weird to me, because I don't think you should feel you have to be paid based on what you THINK your free time is worth compared to somebody else's.
"Do I want the free time or not because I'd rather sleep," I get that.
"This isn't worth MY free because I make X amount at my job," I dunno.
-- SEP Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996 Step FOUR! Get Paid! http://i33.tinypic.com/2v1sq51.jpg
And again, you seem stuck on the "I make more money so my free time is more valuable than somebody who makes less."
That's a really entitled opinion to have.
Somebody who works 40 hours a week doing manual labor at $7.25 probably needs the free time more than somebody who makes $15.50 an hour sitting around doing data entry on a computer, for instance. So I wouldn't expect the $15.50er to say their free time is somehow worth more.
-- SEP Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996 Step FOUR! Get Paid! http://i33.tinypic.com/2v1sq51.jpg
It's not entitled, it's realistic. If my cash flow in > yours, you need to offer me more money for me to think it's worth my time. Simple math here. Dude who makes $7.25 an hour is making like $1000 a month. Dude who makes double that is making... around double that. $20 a month for four sermons is worth more proportionally to the guy who makes less-- he's gaining 2% income, the other guy is gaining one. Take it to the extreme-- celebrities charge like tens of thousands of dollars simply to appear for things, which is probably less work than sitting through a sermon. Why? Because if you paid them $5 they'd gain like... 0.00005% of their income. It's not a matter of the person being "better" at sitting through church or anything like that, it's all about relative gain here.
But hey if a point comes where you're making $40 an hour working 60 hours a week, and you still think that the $5 for your hour is a worthy venture, by all means, be a fool.
-- No problem! This is a cute and pop genocide of love!
Why are we treating this question like a utility calculus problem? Going to church is good for you: it encourages you to get on a reasonable sleep schedule over the weekends, it helps you grow closer to the community, and it provides an outlet to talk about the big questions with trained experts. Plus, you get paid for it.
You all sort of sound like kids complaining about how eating vegetables isn't going to give you the same level of satisfaction as eating another round of desert, and that logic somehow obligates you not to go. Think about your intellectual and social health!
-- West of the brick. ~*Rockets Fan*~ Epic SA-X: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QI89FfIEYU4
It'd be better for those of us who aren't Christians to have the option to go to another form of spiritual outlet that suits us better. Or, if they feel there is no such thing for them, then staying at home/going elsewhere would be more logical.
Going to church is good for you.
Yeah. OK. If you're a member of an organized religion that classifies its meeting grounds as churches.
-- K | H | A | Q | Q | A | H | K "we're about 50 years behind the rest of western society." -icon on B8
Based on your signature and probably your quote as well, really, it seems like you have a very hardened opinion of this, so I really won't push this much and I highly doubt it will go anywhere, but...
We don't really need to be like that, either, do we? Can't we all just get along here?
-- K | H | A | Q | Q | A | H | K "we're about 50 years behind the rest of western society." -icon on B8
Hmm, Assuming I live until 80, I'm currently 24, so that's 56 years. 56years *52 weeks/year=2912 hours, assuming that church only goes an hour every Sunday. That means I'm making <$4 an hour. Nope, not worth it.
Yeah. OK. If you're a member of an organized religion that classifies its meeting grounds as churches.
Where in my post did I even hint at the idea that you need to be religious to appreciate the benefits of church attendance? The only prerequisites are a) you care about big-picture existential questions, b) you want to learn more about a literary and historical cornerstone to the modern West, and c) you want to learn more about the community and those in it. 10,000 cash is a nice cherry on top, but hardly "great" money.
quicksilvver posted...
To all those who say they already go...
my condolences.
As an atheist myself...
L
O
L
-- West of the brick. ~*Rockets Fan*~ Epic SA-X: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QI89FfIEYU4
I don't think many people here who go to church are forced. So they obviously enjoy it. Not really sure why you should feel sorry for them.
Unless of course they hate going to church and still go. Then that's just wtf
Plenty of people go to church because they feel a moral obligation to, not because they enjoy it. If you do find enjoyment in attending church, then that's great, but I find it boring and I like to sleep in on the weekends.
Don't forget about getting ready for church, dressing up, paying for gas, and the time it takes to do all of that.
It's like 2 hours every Sunday. 4 miles roundtrip, estimated 24mpg at $3.75 per gallon.
52* 4 = 208 miles a year * 50 years (est) = 10400 miles.
10400 miles / 24 = 433.33 gallons * 3.75 = $1625 spent (assuming you drive to church)
$10000 - 1625 = $8375 Net profit.
Now take into account your 2 hours for the whole process
104 hours * 50 = 5200 hours.
8375 Actual dollars / 5200 hours = $1.61/hour
Give or take milage and mpg = it could vary between 1.50-2.50/hour.
And if you have a car that gets 100mpg, why the hell are you taking $10K for church for the rest of your life when you probably already make that much at work browsing facebook on your spare time.
--
Cookie cookie cookie cookie cookie. Formally known as Kooj
And again, you seem stuck on the "I make more money so my free time is more valuable than somebody who makes less."
That's a really entitled opinion to have.
Somebody who works 40 hours a week doing manual labor at $7.25 probably needs the free time more than somebody who makes $15.50 an hour sitting around doing data entry on a computer, for instance. So I wouldn't expect the $15.50er to say their free time is somehow worth more.
lmao does this guy really not know what opportunity cost is
And again, you seem stuck on the "I make more money so my free time is more valuable than somebody who makes less."
That's a really entitled opinion to have.
Somebody who works 40 hours a week doing manual labor at $7.25 probably needs the free time more than somebody who makes $15.50 an hour sitting around doing data entry on a computer, for instance. So I wouldn't expect the $15.50er to say their free time is somehow worth more.
I know you haven't replied and this has kind of been covered, but if you make more money, your time really is more valuable. That's why wealthy people have gardeners, maids, shoppers, etc.
If you make $100/hour, it's not going to make any sense spending an hour mowing your lawn if you can pay someone $20/hour to do it for you. If you only make $13/hour, then you will probably mow the lawn yourself because your time isn't worth $20/hour.
--
http://img.imgcake.com/nio/bokbokbokpngur.png Mr Caffeine? He was awesome. - Ayuyu
I know you haven't replied and this has kind of been covered, but if you make more money, your time really is more valuable. That's why wealthy people have gardeners, maids, shoppers, etc.
If you make $100/hour, it's not going to make any sense spending an hour mowing your lawn if you can pay someone $20/hour to do it for you. If you only make $13/hour, then you will probably mow the lawn yourself because your time isn't worth $20/hour.
To be fair, this sorta goes along with what I was saying.
It's not that you NEED the free time more and thus it's more valuable, like he was initially arguing, and thus what I was replying to.
It's that you make more and thus FEEL your time is more valuable, whether it actually is or not. Realistically, somebody who does manual labor 60 hours a week is going to NEED their free time more than somebody who sits at a computer doing data entry for 60 hours a week. So that first person's time SHOULD be worth more. But because Person B makes more money, they FEEL their time is worth more than Person A's.
I realize that's how it works... That whoever makes more is worth more, regardless of job/etc... but I don't really feel that's how it SHOULD be, because I don't feel what you make should be the be all, end all of it.
-- SEP Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996 Step FOUR! Get Paid! http://i33.tinypic.com/2v1sq51.jpg
I get it. I'm just saying that for me, personally... I think what your free time is worth should be based on how much you need it, not on how much money you make.
Thus why I used the word "entitled," because it's like... Somebody that gets paid millions to do... Nothing, would have their free time seen as being worth more than a firefighter's, etc.
-- SEP Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996 Step FOUR! Get Paid! http://i33.tinypic.com/2v1sq51.jpg
generally you make an amount of money because that's the value of the work you do. if you can do more valuable work in the same amount of time, your time is worth more. whether you feel this is fair or not is irrelevant.