A ten-minute piece on Motivation, by Dan Pink, author of Drive (with… - Zer Netmouse — LiveJournal
Many people also have a different level of priority on or belief in the future, so, no, their answer is not "as much as I can get."
Unless the person has a terminal disease, I have some problems with this, particularly if the person is counting on some kind of safety net. The future will happen. In a country with social safety nets, someone who lives without a care for the future is essentially making a choice to have someone else's taxes pay for their own frivolity.
But your response points to a difference between a base assumption of a one-time payment and a base assumption of an ongoing paycheck. I was thinking of it as an ongoing, dependable paycheck for the foreseeable future.
That's true; I don't think it's a good idea for anyone to assume that they'll ever get an "ongoing, dependable paycheck". The world isn't that predictable. Times change, economies shift, technologies come and go, along with the demand for the skillsets to support them.
Consequently, I think that the existence of a social safety net imposes two responsibilities on everyone, that they should carry out to the best of their ability:
- To continually learn and adapt their skills so that they remain useful.
- To live frugally during good times, putting aside as much wealth as possible for the bad times, to minimize the drain on those safety nets.
Some people have disabilities or other circumstances that force them to draw on the safety net. That's fine...that's what it's for. But those who can reasonably avoid it have an ethical obligation to do so, IMHO.