Did you choose climbing over a better career?

took a 10% pay cut 2 years ago for a new job that provided more flexibility, more time off and rarely more than 40 hours per week (plus a shorter commute).

but, i paid my dues working 50-60 hours per week and being on call 24/7 for 3 years prior.

I don't regret those 3 years of hard work. it helped me get my life into the position i am today...perfect work/life balance!

Old lady H wrote: worth poking through is "Your Money or Your Life".

I second that recommendation, I read that book and several others in the same vein back in grad school. IIRC Joe Dominguez was one of the authors of YMOYL, can't remember the other. It's a classic in the voluntary simplicity realm, and I've never heard anyone who's read it who was disappointed or didn't have a shift in their perspective.

Another recommendation for YMOYL.

curt86iroc wrote:took a 10% pay cut 2 years ago for a new job that provided more flexibility, more time off and rarely more than 40 hours per week (plus a shorter commute). but, i paid my dues working 50-60 hours per week and being on call 24/7 for 3 years prior. I don't regret those 3 years of hard work. it helped me get my life into the position i am today...perfect work/life balance!

To me, that sounds like you actually got a significant raise (in terms of your hourly rate).

reboot wrote: I said if everyone didn't have kids. You individual choice offsets people having too many kids (you know what, there are plenty kids that need adopted parents if you are actually trying to save the world), but it's not a good general public policy. Heck, even China is relaxing the one-child policy.

My point is using the word "sustainable" to describe a population replacement policy in a heavily resource intensive country with huge income disparities is faulty logic. Why is it not "good general public policy" to adopt kids instead of having them? Isn't the point of good public policy to ensure that all kids have access to reasonable food, shelter and education?

fossana wrote: My point is using the word "sustainable" to describe a population replacement policy in a heavily resource intensive country with huge income disparities is faulty logic.

So we should shift the population burden to poorer countries? I'm not sure I follow here.

fossana wrote: Why is it not "good general public policy" to adopt kids instead of having them? Isn't the point of good public policy to ensure that all kids have access to reasonable food, shelter and education?

When did I say it was not "good general public policy" to adopt kids instead of having them? The premise of the climbing life style touted in this thread is not whether to adopt or have biological kids, but whether to accept the parenting burden at all (which, if everyone decides not to take on, will destroy humanity).

Tim Lutz wrote:Yet another western system designed for consumption and profit, not sustainability

Nothing got "consumed" here unless the adoption encourages irresponsible reproduction. This is not reproduction thru surrogacy.

Tim Lutz wrote:Adopting is very, very expensive, especially if you want to adopt a child from the US (50k or more). Also, every aspect of your life and home will be scrutinized by social workers and the like. Friends just adopted a girl from Korea and paid 30k after much negotiation Yet another western system designed for consumption and profit, not sustainability

Before anyone goes and adopts someone from a foreign country, I suggest you watch the documentary Poverty Inc. Particularly the last 30 minutes or so. Apparently in Haiti parents were putting their kids in orphanages because they couldn't afford to take care of them, so all these Westerners were adopting kids who they thought were orphans, but really had parents who were alive and well... It was interesting to say the least.

reboot wrote: As for the kids thing, it's a choice. I'm not here to judge, but just realize it's unsustainable if everyone decide to not have kids.

Unsustainable how? Are you saying we have some burden to keep the US population at a certain level? Why? We already use a disproportionate amount of resources as is.

reboot wrote:You individual choice offsets people having too many kids (you know what, there are plenty kids that need adopted parents if you are actually trying to save the world), but it's not a good general public policy.

I'm not even talking about developing countries. There are plenty of kids in the US that need responsible parents. How is it "not good general public policy" to adopt instead of breeding?

fossana wrote:How is it "not good general public policy" to adopt instead of breeding?

reboot wrote:When did I say it was not "good general public policy" to adopt kids instead of having them?

Are you trying to "bearbreeder" me? I brought up adoption (not you) b/c you claimed your choice is based on the "greater good". Adoption would be a much more noble choice than yours, but would require actual effort. So don't try to claim moral high ground while taking the easy way out; it's quite insulting.

Anyway, you've not even attempted to address my real concern:

The premise of the climbing life style touted in this thread is not whether to adopt or have biological kids, but whether to accept the parenting burden at all (which, if everyone decides not to take on, will destroy humanity).

It's your choice to not be a parent, but there's really no need to tell everyone how smart you are or how superior your strategy is, because your strategy is "unsustainable" for the general population (humanity is where it is today because of nurturing).

reboot wrote: Are you trying to "bearbreeder" me? I brought up adoption (not you) b/c you claimed your choice is based on the "greater good". Adoption would be a much more noble choice than yours, but would require actual effort. So don't try to claim moral high ground while taking the easy way out; it's quite insulting. Anyway, you've not even attempted to address my real concern: The premise of the climbing life style touted in this thread is not whether to adopt or have biological kids, but whether to accept the parenting burden at all (which, if everyone decides not to take on, will destroy humanity). It's your choice to not be a parent, but there's really no need to tell everyone how smart you are or how superior your strategy is, because your strategy is "unsustainable" for the general population (humanity is where it is today because of nurturing).

WER GONNA DIE!

I will offer this to the OP; how do you know you're choosing climbing over a better career? You're more or less predicting the future, which, last I checked, isn't exactly possible for us mere mortals. I was told, and ultimately came to believe the lie, that I was choosing climbing for about 4 years while I worked in climbing shops/outdoor retail after grad school. The thought that at least I got to get out more was supposed to make up for shit pay, piss-poor treatment, and general higher level of stress that comes along with that lifestyle.

I left that "industry" behind for a literal doubling of my salary, over 30 paid days off a year, 401(k) matching, and free...yes, free top-tier health/vision/dental insurance. I have actually rode/climbed more than I did in the last two years in that "industry". The only thing I miss is mid-week days off, but as I got older it became increasingly hard to find partners with that availability anyway, but I can make my own mid-week days off with my paid time off anyway.

I'm not saying any of this to brag, it's just my experience. Results may vary.

Yes I definitely chose climbing over a whole list of well paying careers. I'm 18 and after I graduated in June I decided to cancel all my college applications and am now living out of my van without parents support or encouragement. I chose the dirtbag life early and I know it's the life I want to live.

One has to have some sort of income to even live a dirt bag lifestyle. Consider this ... work at what makes you happy. No matter how much a job pays, if your hate your job, your life will be miserable. If you want to provide for you later years, work and save early, using the delayed gratification idea. It is much harder to save when you get older, believe me ... I'm turning 63 this year.

The crags will always be there, but your ability to sustain a lifestyle may not. Choose wisely.

reedalex98 wrote:Yes I definitely chose climbing over a whole list of well paying careers. I'm 18 and after I graduated in June I decided to cancel all my college applications and am now living out of my van without parents support or encouragement. I chose the dirtbag life early and I know it's the life I want to live.

So you've been living the "dirtbag lifestyle" for a month? Are you really sure that it's the life you want to live at this point?

Nick Sweeney wrote: So you've been living the "dirtbag lifestyle" for a month? Are you really sure that it's the life you want to live at this point?

Eff that. I want to get access to this "whole list of well paying careers" available to a recent high-school graduate! Why'd I waste my time going to college and grad school?!?

reedalex98 wrote:Yes I definitely chose climbing over a whole list of well paying careers. I'm 18 and after I graduated in June I decided to cancel all my college applications and am now living out of my van without parents support or encouragement. I chose the dirtbag life early and I know it's the life I want to live.

What well paying careers were those?

Of course you want to live in a van and climb all the time, YOURE 18

mediocre wrote: What well paying careers were those?

Going to college.

It’s interesting that the title of this thread implies some kind of dichotomy between climbing and a “better” career.

To whatever extent you value climbing, choosing a career that enables you to climb as much as you like should be part of your definition of a “good” career. No contradiction here, no need to compromise, sacrifice, etc.

OP, believe me, when I was young(er) the climbing bug jerked me around and tried to dominate me. I resisted, and went on to become a civil rights lawyer in L.A. (almost 35 years). There were times I hated it, but looking back, I wouldn't have changed a thing. I found my career over time to have been very satisfying. Nevertheless, I climbed more than most people over the years. There were years I climbed a lot and pulled down hard, other years I didn't and got fat and lazy. But, the bug never left me and I tried to continue climbing whenever I got a chance. I still climb in my early 60's. Pulled an on-sight 5.9 the other day after several months off. Planning for a heavy schedule during the fall into the winter. So my job, from time to time, interfered with my climbing, but I always knew I had set my priorities straight. The trick is to learn how to do both. The rock is always going to be there. Will your job opportunities?

Just want to add my perspective to the pile. I got a degree in eco/evo biology, which let me work a low-paying job in Boulder and climb outside 3-4x per week. I moved to Orange County and worked a 70/hr per week lab job, climbed in the gym 1-2x per week and outside 1-2x per month. I quit, got a traveling wildlife job that had 3-4 long days per week with good pay, lived in my van, climbed outside exclusively but inconsistently. Quit that job, started taking Community College classes to get into the medical field, got a job at the local climbing gym, wound up starting my own business, worked a lot, pulled on plastic a lot, and climbed granite almost every weekend. I'm now getting another degree in nursing in a town with fantastic climbing within 20minutes of my front door.

Its hard to say which period was the "best." I can definitely say that working 70hrs and climbing predominantly in the gym sucked. However, being unemployed and climbing "full-time," was also unfulfilling - as you can't literally climb all the time and there's downtime that can be difficult to keep from becoming boring. Running a business wasn't for me; I loved the work and the schedule (3 long days on, 4 days off) but hated the requisite marketing/staffing/finance. Living/working close to a gym during that time was critical as I got REALLY strong when I was motivated, but having to drive 2+ hours to get to good rock meant I had many weekends pulling on plastic - lame.

My advice is to take the opportunities to try different lives; if you hate your job, quit and dirtbag for as long as you can. If that's what makes you happy, then continue doing it. Also try working different schedules, find what career suits your ideal schedule - go with that. Point is, try stuff and find what works best for you. For me, it was finding a place that provides opportunities to advance my career and also climb outside a lot. It took me 10 years to find it, but it happened. Be patient, be open, and stay motivated.