This conversation started[1] as an attempt to understand why a particular person made a particular choice about a job. You are letting your emotions (or maybe your social ideals or ethical principles) prevent you from understanding the situation from this particular person's point of view. Even if his annual income is $135,000, it can be rational and ethical to sacrifice some aspects of job satisfaction for even more income, e.g., if he is responsible for the economic security of an entire family.
Money is very useful, particularly for avoiding or recovering from the 100s of kinds of catastrophes than can befall a person, and even in the wealthiest parts of the world, most people's lives would be more secure and better if they had more money.
> prevent you from understanding the situation from this particular person's point of view
I'm not, because you're not that person, you're a different person, who for some reason is trying to answer for them, while not actually knowing the reason. What's preventing me from knowing the reason is that person not answering to the question. Then it's not a life-or-death situation for me if they answer or not.
> Even if his annual income is $135,000, it can be rational and ethical to sacrifice some aspects of job satisfaction for even more income, e.g., if he is responsible for the economic security of an entire family.
Absolutely, I don't disagree with that. I disagree with the notion that this person cannot answer for themselves, and you have to somehow assume how my living situation is, when that's pretty far away from the topic.
I did lose my cool a bit when you asked me an irrelevant question, and then I replied with an irrelevant question myself just to show how off-topic all of that is. I'm sorry for letting my emotions get the best of me.
