10 Reasons you should never get a job!

[Shoe]

You have been brainwashed by society pretty well.

[Hollandicus]

Wow, this one generated some serious debate... I agree that the details are daft and the statements designed to create controversy - but hey guys, this was *supposed* to be read as a humorous piece right??!?!

Point still valid though - working towards a passive income and all that good stuff.

Cheers, Mark

[Sniper]

I like the tag line... "Personal Development for Smart People"... trademarked even [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

This article is designed to make people angry... angry enough to consider the possibility of passive income, instead of a regular paycheck.

Did it make you angry enough??

[kfellmy]

yea i got angry right after I got done laughing.

[elus2]

Many people who start businesses just buy themselves long hours at sub par wage rates.

[Evan]

[ QUOTE ]
You only get paid a fraction of the real value you generate. Your real salary may be more than triple what you’re paid, but most of that money you’ll never see. It goes straight into other people’s pockets.

This makes it very clear he doesn't understand wtf he's talking about. You have to get paid less than your "real salary" because the business that employs you needs to have money to expand. If they paid out your full value they wouldn't be able to add value to the business. If they had paid everyone they hired before you their full value they wouldn't have been able to hire you.


You do realize that you completely agree with his statement.

[/ QUOTE ]
You do realize that the inherent conclusion of this statement is that it should inspire you to not get a job and I don't agree with that?

[Tien]

[ QUOTE ]
Just a bunch of Kiyosaki style pep talk. Maybe he is not aware of the small biz failure rate:

[ QUOTE ]
The NFIB estimates that over the lifetime of a business, 39% are profitable, 30% break even, and 30% lose money, with 1% falling in the "unable to determine" category.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reality is that different people have different skills and market demand for those skills.

For example, if a person is talented enough to be a successful professional then it's probably optimal for that person to complete his studies.

However, for someone that is not smart or capable to succeed in a traditional environment, and can't obtain a relatively high paying professional position, then starting his own business might be optimal.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't agree with this.

There is a high business failure rate just like there is a high poker failure rate. Just because lots of people fail in poker doesn't mean its impossible to become rich through poker.


"high paying professional position" does not equal a job.

High paying professional position = what the richest Americans in the world are doing, and that is NOT getting a job, but creating jobs.

[crazy canuck]

[ QUOTE ]

So in your opinion, jobs are likely the most optimal decision for people who are smart; and businesses are optimal for people who are not smart?

[/ QUOTE ]

You missed my point entirely. I am just trying to point out that different people will have different optimal decisions. The original article suggested that EVERYONE is a succer who works for the man.

For example, if you are smart enough to be a medical specalist (radiologist/surgeon) it is probably not optimal for you to start a business when you can make 300-400k from your job (unless of course you're incredibly talented in other areas).

And by "smart" I do not just mean book smarts. If someone has excellent managerial skills that person will also likely to have a significantly higher compensation from a corporate environment.

However, if a person earns minimum wage or low wage because there is no demand for his skills (could be smart guy with no social skills etc), it would be probably worthwile for this person to pursue opening his own business.

[Tien]

Again.

The writer of the article presented his arguments in a way that I don't like. He could have easily presented his points in a much more less controversial manner to get his point across, but he decided to make people angry. I don't agree with the fact that getting people angry = changing their views. It actually accomplishes the opposite.


His point was that it's foolish to solely rely on a job to earn you a living. The world today is filled with so many oppurtunities that can earn you passive income = income that you don't have to work for to earn.

If you continuously leverage your brain you will achieve the status of creating passive income that you don't have to work for that far >>>>>> exceeds what you would make actually working at a job swapping hours for dollars.

That is the point he tried to make but made the mistake of making people angry. I DON'T agree with that, but I agree with his points.

[Tien]

"Just a bunch of Kiyosaki style pep talk. "


I have to thank Kiyosaki for changing my thinking and allowing me to become free of ever having to work at a job ever again.