> The most important metric is consistent and passive income from wealth.
This is an opinion with which reasonable people can disagree.
You write as though it’s impossible to hold a job you don’t love and at the same time work toward self-actualization. This is clearly not true for all definitions of self-actualization that I’m familiar with.
the number of people actually able to obtain a job for which they would also self-actualize with if given unlimited money, is so small as to be a statistical anomaly.
Sure, part of the job being satisfying can be that you actually need the money so doing it means you provide for your family. While still craving that the job be intrinsically satisfying.
As a thought experiment, can you imagine hunting being more satisfying to a person than eating a farmed cow? Maybe it satisfies some innate desire to hunt? Maybe they like they challenge?
Now could you imagine that same hunting being far more satisfying if they are hungry, or if their family needs the food, than if they already have access to infinite food?
Similar for job satisfaction. Many people might be most fulfilled when doing something challenging where generating work product directly translates to meeting material survival needs.
> Many people might be most fulfilled when doing something challenging [as a job]
i challenge the notion that this can apply to many people. It applies to _some_ people - arguably, a very small number, compared to the number of jobs.
The activities that many people self-actualize on are likely to be non-essential and require capital to perform. Activities such as sports, arts, music, literature, etc. Very few people would self-actualize on being a carpet cleaner, flipping burgers, or being accountant.
This is an opinion with which reasonable people can disagree.
You write as though it’s impossible to hold a job you don’t love and at the same time work toward self-actualization. This is clearly not true for all definitions of self-actualization that I’m familiar with.