Social scientists have been trying to identify the conditions most likely to promote satisfying human lives. Their findings give some important clues about choosing a career: Money matters, but as the economist Richard Easterlin and others have demonstrated, not always in the ways you may think.
Consider this thought experiment. Suppose you had to choose between two parallel worlds that were alike except that people in one had significantly higher incomes. If you occupied the same position in the income distribution in both — say, as a median earner — there would be compelling reasons for choosing the richer world. After all, societies with higher incomes tend also to enjoy cleaner air and water, better schools, less noisy environments, safer working conditions, longer life expectancy and many other obvious benefits.
But context also matters. If you faced a choice between being a relatively low earner in a high-income society or being near the top in a society in which your income was lower in absolute terms, the answer would be less clear.
More here – The New York Times
PS : Depressingly I think this is a forlorn hope for many as either circumstances have conspired to stop them doing what they really want or the desire to find something they really loved was never fostered in them. Too often people do what they think they should be doing.
I agree CT. I wish the Career Guidance Counsellor at my school thought outside the box a bit more (or perhaps really loved their job as per this article)
It would be interesting to flip the focus in the initial part of the article to how people feel about the size of a liability (mortgage) as opposed to the size of an asset (house) in relation to their income size and job satisfaction.