Sunk cost
Continued from http://www.cplusplus.com/forum/lounge/269431/2/#msg1160095
It shouldn't be a factor at all. It's like saying "well, I still want to graduate, plus Venus is in ascendance with Jupiter, so I'm going to continue my studies". It's nonsense.
As I said, I agree. That's a rational decision; it's based on the resources that need to be invested and what will be obtained.
That's the sunk cost fallacy. You're making a decision based on your past decisions.
Imagine that he's still been on his current course for three years, but actually it takes two more years to graduate? Is it still reasonable? What if it takes 3 more years? 5? 10? 20? Then that 3 years have been spent is irrelevant.
The correct way to make decisions is statelessly, as if the universe had come into existence Last Thursday.
It doesn't matter. The time and energy were wasted each moment along the way, not when it was decided not to continue. If he ended up quitting it would just mean that starting the project in the first place was ultimately a bad decision.
Imagine this situation: employers near him actually don't care for that school because a lot of low quality graduates, and value work experience more. Then by continuing for another year he will not just waste his time on something useless, but also waste time that he could have spent looking for an entry-level job, such that a year from now he'd have more experience. Will he have wasted that year when he goes to an interview and he's told that his degree is worthless (hypothetically, because in all likelihood they wouldn't even call him back), or will the year be wasted as it progresses?
| So saying he's been in college for 3 years so he may as well finish isn't a sunk cost fallacy because that's just one factor, it's not the sole reason for continuing the degree. |
| His option right now involves giving 1 year to get a degree, this is very reasonable. |
| So saying he should finish since he's already been in college 3 years [...] is very reasonable |
Imagine that he's still been on his current course for three years, but actually it takes two more years to graduate? Is it still reasonable? What if it takes 3 more years? 5? 10? 20? Then that 3 years have been spent is irrelevant.
The correct way to make decisions is statelessly, as if the universe had come into existence Last Thursday.
| it ACTUALLY WILL be wasted if he doesn't finish - since it brought him nothing |
Imagine this situation: employers near him actually don't care for that school because a lot of low quality graduates, and value work experience more. Then by continuing for another year he will not just waste his time on something useless, but also waste time that he could have spent looking for an entry-level job, such that a year from now he'd have more experience. Will he have wasted that year when he goes to an interview and he's told that his degree is worthless (hypothetically, because in all likelihood they wouldn't even call him back), or will the year be wasted as it progresses?
| It shouldn't be a factor at all. It's like saying "well, I still want to graduate, plus Venus is in ascendance with Jupiter, so I'm going to continue my studies". It's nonsense. |
Not exactly. When you FIRST make a decision, you weigh your benefits and losses. You go to college because you find the degree will benefit you more than what you're going to lose (time). So if you go to college after making the decision, you're following through with the decision made after analyzing the cost and benefit. If 3 years in you're rethinking the decision, the fact that you've already been at it for 3 years is important. Those 3 years can now be ACTUALLY wasted, or used to your advantage to finish up that last year and getting the degree - which was the reward you were willing to spend 4 years to get.
| As I said, I agree. That's a rational decision; it's based on the resources that need to be invested and what will be obtained. |
If I understood right, you're disagreeing right now with using the fact that he's been in college 3 years as a reason at all for continuing - even though it's not the only or deciding reason?
| That's the sunk cost fallacy. You're making a decision based on your past decisions. |
Perhaps if it was the only reason. Here's an example of what I mean:
You buy a car, turns out it's not what you exactly wanted. By the time you realize this fault in the car, it's too late to give it back to the dealer. You say, "Well, I'm already paying for it, so I may as well drive it."
This would on the surface look like a sunk cost fallacy, but it isn't. You have much more to lose by NOT driving it. What are you going to do? Buy another car on top of it (even if you sell it you've basically lost a bunch of value as soon as you drove it off the lot)? Just not drive it and take a bus?
It's more of a loaded statement because it seems to only give the reasoning of past decisions, but it's really more of a mental justification to accept the circumstances - where driving this car is the best financial choice available.
| Is it still reasonable? What if it takes 3 more years? 5? 10? 20? Then that 3 years have been spent is irrelevant. |
Yes, then it would be irrelevant comparatively and you'd realize the sunken cost wouldn't even mentally justify finishing. However, let's think about this.. Let's say that you're going down a career path, and 3 years in, you find another career path. However, you have no personal preference either way in which path you take considering everything other than sunk cost. The balance is completely equal. Do your circuits fry? No, you say, "Well gosh! I've already spent 3 years on this one, so I may as well, stick with it!" It's the difference between finishing what those 3 years led up to, and just scrapping it. In this case, it was a deciding factor since there were no other factors to consider.
It's important to realize that an important priority for most people is to live a life that's full, not wasted. Understanding that another path may provide a better outcome doesn't necessarily translate to happiness. You may regret having wasted so much time on something that you gave up half way since it was just "sunken cost".
| The correct way to make decisions is statelessly, as if the universe had come into existence Last Thursday. |
It's a pretty funny belief but I also found it useful sometimes in debates.
| Will he have wasted that year when he goes to an interview and he's told that his degree is worthless (hypothetically, because in all likelihood they wouldn't even call him back), or will the year be wasted as it progresses? |
The issue with this scenario is that he has a degree. It may prove useful down the line. Perhaps his employer who values experience more than a degree goes bankrupt. Now he's looking for a new job and the other companies are looking for a degree. He wants to finish the last year of college but his college tells him his credits are too old, and that he'd have to start from nothing. Now not only did he waste 3 years, but he may have to waste more. If he has the degree, the year may have been relatively wasted when he gets rejected, but we won't know if it was a real waste in either scenario till he dies.
| If I understood right, you're disagreeing right now with using the fact that he's been in college 3 years as a reason at all for continuing - even though it's not the only or deciding reason? |
| Perhaps if it was the only reason. Here's an example of what I mean: You buy a car, turns out it's not what you exactly wanted. By the time you realize this fault in the car, it's too late to give it back to the dealer. You say, "Well, I'm already paying for it, so I may as well drive it." This would on the surface look like a sunk cost fallacy, but it isn't. You have much more to lose by NOT driving it. What are you going to do? Buy another car on top of it (even if you sell it you've basically lost a bunch of value as soon as you drove it off the lot)? Just not drive it and take a bus? It's more of a loaded statement because it seems to only give the reasoning of past decisions, but it's really more of a mental justification to accept the circumstances - where driving this car is the best financial choice available. |
Let's suppose that the fault of car A, which you own, is that between fuel efficiency and maintenance, the car would cost x more money per year than car B. Let's also suppose that if you were to sell it right now and buy car B, you would have to put y money on top of what you've already payed for A. Then the rational way to decide whether to drive A or sell it would be to see if x * n is greater than y, where n is the expected lifetime of the car.
In all likelihood it won't be, because there's not that much difference in efficiency between internal combustion engines, but if it is and you still won't sell it because you feel you'd be wasting y money, then that's a sunk cost fallacy.
It's really a bad example, though. You can trade material goods with other people with relatively little loss, or sometimes even profit. You can't trade spent time.
| The issue with this scenario is that he has a degree. It may prove useful down the line. |
| However, let's think about this.. Let's say that you're going down a career path, and 3 years in, you find another career path. However, you have no personal preference either way in which path you take considering everything other than sunk cost. The balance is completely equal. Do your circuits fry? No, you say, "Well gosh! I've already spent 3 years on this one, so I may as well, stick with it!" It's the difference between finishing what those 3 years led up to, and just scrapping it. In this case, it was a deciding factor since there were no other factors to consider. |
You're completely free to stay on your current path or to change it. If you think that you'd be "wasting" anything by picking one path or the other then that's entirely a matter of how you're perceiving your situation. In reality, no matter what you do now, you're now 3 years older than you were 3 years ago. There's nothing you can do now to change that, but how you perceive your situation is up to you.
| It's important to realize that an important priority for most people is to live a life that's full, not wasted. |
| Yes. Fallaciousness is "viral". If any part of an argument is fallacious then the entire argument is fallacious. It's like undefined behavior. |
Yea, but not all reasons have to be logical. And just because they aren't logical doesn't mean it's a fallacy. If I decide to eat ice cream while I'm in no need for it (or perhaps I shouldn't have it for some reason), it doesn't make the decision to do so wrong. You can't make all life decisions based on absolute logic, otherwise you wouldn't even be on this forum debating me since it doesn't really logically help you in any way. You're giving up time that could be better spent.
The same goes with the sunk cost fallacy. It really only applies when you continue to do something explicitly because you feel that you've already put in so much for it. But using the fact that you've already spent so much time and effort as a motivational reason, as sub-reason if you will (since it's weight alone is pointless, but is a nice touch to existing reasons), this isn't what the sunken cost fallacy is really targeting. We're really arguing in a small grey area.
If you've been in college 3 years to get a degree, adding this fact as a another bit of reasoning wouldn't be a sunk cost fallacy, since it's just a testament to how much time and effort you put in.
If you've ever watched an anime where the main character has to train for something huge, but then finds himself going astray, their master may say, "Did you forget how much work you put in!? You're going to give it all up now?!" And again, seemingly a sunk cost fallacy, but the motive behind the training hasn't disappeared. This reason is just extra, more for motivation really. It doesn't have to be completely logical to be a "valid" reason.
The sunk cost fallacy shouldn't apply until the only reason for doing something is that you've already spent time/money/effort. Particularly, it applies when continuing would mean greater losses or when continuing is meaningless.
| Your past has already been spent so nothing you do now will change whether it was wasted. |
Perhaps you didn't mean to phrase it this way. If you spent 3 years in college, didn't get a degree, then came back years later to get it and you have to start all over again, those 3 years were wasted in terms of progress towards your degree. The way you phrased this sentence would almost claim that any time spent is simply time wasted.
If you spend 4 years to achieve something and you achieve it, those years were not wasted.
If you spent 3 years to achieve something and give up with a year left, those 3 years counted towards nothing, and were wasted by definition.
| What's important is that people need to learn to let go of their past mistakes. Ideas such as "I've wasted x years of my life on y" are toxic to the mind and only lead to unhappiness. Identify your mistakes, learn from them, correct your behavior, and move on. What's you've done doesn't matter. All that matters is what you do now. |
I can agree with this, but it's easier said than done. Sometimes you've just lost a once in a lifetime kind of thing, and you can't help but realize that if you had only not screwed up on that one thing, you'd be happier.
I'd say, in this case, it's somewhat of an ambiguity in language and implied reasoning. Saying "I've already done most of XYZ, better follow through with it" is not always a fallacy, if the implied reasoning behind it is sound. If it costs only $10k more to finish the degree, but a possible cost of a future where you don't have a degree costs (an estimated) more than $10k, then it's not illogical to follow through with the degree (it's still only looking at prospective costs).
In other words, saying "I've been doing something for X years" in this case of college could have nothing to do with the X years itself. The reason that X years was brought up might have been to just imply "I only have to do something for (4-X) more years; this makes it worth it in a solely prospective sense."
In other words, saying "I've been doing something for X years" in this case of college could have nothing to do with the X years itself. The reason that X years was brought up might have been to just imply "I only have to do something for (4-X) more years; this makes it worth it in a solely prospective sense."
Last edited on
| If I decide to eat ice cream while I'm in no need for it (or perhaps I shouldn't have it for some reason), it doesn't make the decision to do so wrong. You can't make all life decisions based on absolute logic, otherwise you wouldn't even be on this forum debating me since it doesn't really logically help you in any way. |
People normally do things because they want to achieve something, which isn't always something material. What is wanted isn't what makes some behavior irrational. Irrational behavior arises when we let our emotions cloud our judgement and choose courses of action that don't help us achieve our goals, or perhaps even actually harm us.
| You're giving up time that could be better spent. |
| If you've ever watched an anime where the main character has to train for something huge, but then finds himself going astray, their master may say, "Did you forget how much work you put in!? You're going to give it all up now?!" And again, seemingly a sunk cost fallacy |
| Perhaps you didn't mean to phrase it this way. If you spent 3 years in college, didn't get a degree, then came back years later to get it and you have to start all over again, those 3 years were wasted in terms of progress towards your degree. The way you phrased this sentence would almost claim that any time spent is simply time wasted. |
Curious question, you don't have to answer obviously, how old are you? I've been curious.
Well, I meant as in the ice cream goes against a greater goal, let's say attaining a six pack. Eating the ice cream would be illogical, assuming you'd greater enjoy having a six pack than downing some ice cream. And let's assume you must forgo ice cream to get a six pack in this scenario.
In this case, eating the ice cream is illogical, since you picked a short-lived happiness with a greater longer-lived one.
Yes, and a want to not have your time be in vain gives way for a valid argument as to why using the time spent in college as a reason (though not the sole reason) to finish.
Lol! I bet if you were in that situation you'd say, "It hurts! Why must I be swayed by unreason?!"
This is only half right. If you spent 3 year to get a degree and then don't get it. Those 3 years are wasted, because the goal you wanted to reach with the time spent wasn't reached. You can find some greater take away if you want, say you learned, had fun, lost your v-card, etc.. But in the end, it was still really wasted in that the goal the time was spent on went unachieved.
Well, it's not exactly rejecting yourself. We're not such perfect beings that our emotions won't conflict. For example, having a child too early and ruining opportunities may be a regret. However, asked if they regret having *insert child's name* and they may so no. They regret the situation, they don't regret the outcome. Contradictory, but I'd bet many people would have this exact contradiction in mind.
| I assume you'd derive some pleasure from eating the ice cream |
Well, I meant as in the ice cream goes against a greater goal, let's say attaining a six pack. Eating the ice cream would be illogical, assuming you'd greater enjoy having a six pack than downing some ice cream. And let's assume you must forgo ice cream to get a six pack in this scenario.
In this case, eating the ice cream is illogical, since you picked a short-lived happiness with a greater longer-lived one.
| What is wanted isn't what makes some behavior irrational. Irrational behavior arises when we let our emotions cloud our judgement and choose courses of action that don't help us achieve our goals, or perhaps even actually harm us. |
Yes, and a want to not have your time be in vain gives way for a valid argument as to why using the time spent in college as a reason (though not the sole reason) to finish.
| Loss aversion is very strong in humans, but irrational. Just because it works to convince people doesn't make it not a fallacy. |
Lol! I bet if you were in that situation you'd say, "It hurts! Why must I be swayed by unreason?!"
| My point is precisely that whether some time has been wasted exists entirely in your mind |
This is only half right. If you spent 3 year to get a degree and then don't get it. Those 3 years are wasted, because the goal you wanted to reach with the time spent wasn't reached. You can find some greater take away if you want, say you learned, had fun, lost your v-card, etc.. But in the end, it was still really wasted in that the goal the time was spent on went unachieved.
| My present self is the result of all my past decisions, so to say that some of that was "wasted" would be to reject myself, at least in part. |
Well, it's not exactly rejecting yourself. We're not such perfect beings that our emotions won't conflict. For example, having a child too early and ruining opportunities may be a regret. However, asked if they regret having *insert child's name* and they may so no. They regret the situation, they don't regret the outcome. Contradictory, but I'd bet many people would have this exact contradiction in mind.
| Curious question, you don't have to answer obviously, how old are you? I've been curious. |
| Well, I meant as in the ice cream goes against a greater goal, let's say attaining a six pack. Eating the ice cream would be illogical, assuming you'd greater enjoy having a six pack than downing some ice cream. And let's assume you must forgo ice cream to get a six pack in this scenario. In this case, eating the ice cream is illogical, since you picked a short-lived happiness with a greater longer-lived one. |
| Lol! I bet if you were in that situation you'd say, "It hurts! Why must I be swayed by unreason?!" |
| This is only half right. If you spent 3 year to get a degree and then don't get it. Those 3 years are wasted, because the goal you wanted to reach with the time spent wasn't reached. You can find some greater take away if you want, say you learned, had fun, lost your v-card, etc.. But in the end, it was still really wasted in that the goal the time was spent on went unachieved. |
| Well, it's not exactly rejecting yourself. We're not such perfect beings that our emotions won't conflict. For example, having a child too early and ruining opportunities may be a regret. However, asked if they regret having *insert child's name* and they may so no. They regret the situation, they don't regret the outcome. Contradictory, but I'd bet many people would have this exact contradiction in mind. |
But I still don't think any time was a waste. It's not a matter of "being a perfect being", it's about always learning from your experiences and constantly being your best self. You can't grow as a person if you just go through life making the same mistakes over and over again, never learning anything. If that's your case then I'll grant you that you really are wasting time, but it has nothing to do with dropping out of college or not.
| My birthday is on my profile |
So it is, still pretty young.
| Well, we face that every day, don't we? We suffer because we let ourselves be led astray from our goals by our emotions. Our laziness and gluttony keeps us from having our chiseled abs and our PhDs. |
I guess it's pretty common, but I've never really had that. I already have chiseled abs and couldn't care less about a PhD. I don't have many goals, so I guess even if I was a bit of a lazy gluttony I wouldn't notice much.
| Speaking for myself, I do not see the time I spent in university not getting a degree as wasted. I don't know how you're going to convince me of the opposite. |
Well, this is because you got a rewarding job, which was the point of trying to get the degree. So you actually won, because you spent less time than you were willing to give and achieved a great outcome. Plus, college was a gateway to finding this job.
For someone who has gone to college for 3 years then, let's say, failed, I'm sure it would be a different story. In the case of the individual we were talking about, if he suddenly leaves college after 3 years of hard work trying to get a degree, what exactly would he do? It's not like he has a job lined up at the moment. Those 3 years would be wasted because neither his long or short term goals were reached, and nothing in those 3 years actually went towards anything useful.
Again, one could say those 3 years weren't a waste and find some take away, but if you spent time on something and got nothing out of it, it's a waste by definition. Imagine spending company money on practically nothing and when your boss asks you why you wasted so much you reply with, "It's not actually wasted you see because I enjoyed myself.." The point of the money is to be used for company purposes, so it was wasted by definition. If you're going to say money can be wasted but not time, understand that this would be a huge fallacy.
| I'd give anything to be able to turn the clock back to 2016 |
Funny, I wish I could go back to 2016 too.
| Hell, I'll go even further: you're not an adult if you've never done something you'll always regret. |
One second we're talking about logical fallacies the next we're crying and talking about being an adult :(
| But I still don't think any time was a waste. It's not a matter of "being a perfect being", it's about always learning from your experiences and constantly being your best self. |
I can agree with the logic, but it doesn't mean that one can't reflect on life and think, "wow, I wasted a lot of time on nothing." Where time was spent, probably repetitively, and it felt like nothing was truly gained from it - likely a fog of several months or years where you don't remember much.
| If that's your case then I'll grant you that you really are wasting time |
Well, this would be by your standards. The point is that someone going to college and gaining nothing from it would probably find that the time was wasted, even if you wouldn't specifically think so.
| Well, this is because you got a rewarding job, which was the point of trying to get the degree. |
| One second we're talking about logical fallacies the next we're crying and talking about being an adult :( |
| it doesn't mean that one can't reflect on life and think, "wow, I wasted a lot of time on nothing." Where time was spent, probably repetitively, and it felt like nothing was truly gained from it |
| The point is that someone going to college and gaining nothing from it would probably find that the time was wasted, even if you wouldn't specifically think so. |
| I did learn some very useful things, like linear algebra and number theory, and some less useful things, like chemistry and correctness proofs. |
That's certainly one benefit from college, but you're still coding and applying the knowledge. Someone else who may not have even cared much for the field may find they've wasted their time, and probably forgotten what they were "learning" after the class is over.
| Well, we're also talking about life decisions. Plus, you're the one who brought up regrets. |
Sometimes I wanna marry you, sometimes I wanna choke you. Probably won't, but I hope I meet you. I wonder how our feelings towards each other would change if we saw each other.
| My point is not that you can't do it, but that you don't have to do it. |
This is a very weak argument, you don't have to do anything. You could just lay in bed for a few days and let yourself die from dehydration and lack of nutrition. You don't have to look at time as wasted, but sometimes it is by definition and you can't help but feel that it truly was. So I don't see how wanting to not let time/money/effort go in vain by continuing to do what you were as being a sunk cost fallacy, since it's not the primary motivators. It's not like you would no longer want to continue had you not put in the resources you did.
| I think if someone went to college and literally all they got out of it was a piece of paper saying they went to college, then even if they finished they really did waste their time. |
Happens to many students, it's what they do with the paper that's important. I mean, my C++ class right now is going over algorithms, time complexities, sorting, heaps, hash tables, etc.. He practically goes over the basic concept of them, then leaves us to our own devices for the test and coding assignments. What am I really learning when I look up the code for a hash table? That I don't actually need to know it because the information is available?
As for my math classes, I looked forward to them when I started college, I always in tune with math and liked that it was logical. But it's impossible to learn Calculus from a professor who may as well be speaking Chinese with how thick his accent is. And not to rehash proofs, but coding (and most things) doesn't exactly require concrete proofs, so a good portion of that knowledge will be chucked out the window soon enough.
Not that I would consider college to have been a waste, but the knowledge I got for the time spent is definitely an eye opener.
| Christ, all that effort just for that? What a world. What a way to spend your finite time. |
Not like the alternatives are much better. Without a degree it can be hard finding a programming job. For example, I was at an interview with a company not too long ago. They quizzed me on C++ stuff and I'm sure I did well. They asked what year of college I was in and I said it was my second, and immediately the tone shifted. Asked me if I was looking for an internship..
Last edited on
closed account (E8A4Nwbp)
| helios wrote: |
|---|
| I think if someone went to college and... |
A) The failure to have attended a laudable university, which may have been subsequent to your college qualifications not meeting a certain standard or your inability to cover financial matters. Had you attended a more reputable university, you would seem more valuable. (Cambridge or MIT (etc) compared to mediocre universities)
B) Lack of skills other than qualifications, mainly when jobs are in high demand and you're unable to demonstrate exceptionality.
C) The failure to have achieved a certain degree level (1st class, 2nd class etc or the country's standard)
| Sometimes I wanna marry you, sometimes I wanna choke you. |
Last edited on
| I think you are far too emotionally connected to somebody else you have met on an internet forum. It's just a cplusplus forum. |
I think you're far too connected to people you meet in real life, it's just real life. Either way, it was clearly a joke.
closed account (E8A4Nwbp)
| it was clearly a joke |
Last edited on
| Someone else who may not have even cared much for the field may find they've wasted their time, and probably forgotten what they were "learning" after the class is over. |
| You don't have to look at time as wasted, but sometimes it is by definition |
If you argue that it's when it's spent without getting anything back, then I'll come back saying that a) you never have the option not to spend your time, and that b) again, you're always getting something back, and it's a pessimistic outlook that causes the inability to perceive that.
If you argue that it's when it's spent without getting the maximum pay-off, then all time is wasted. There's a hypothetical universe out there where you were born with luck 100 and everything goes the way you plan it the moment you decide it, no matter what.
| You don't have to look at time as wasted, but sometimes it is by definition and you can't help but feel that it truly was. |
| For example, I was at an interview with a company not too long ago. They quizzed me on C++ stuff and I'm sure I did well. They asked what year of college I was in and I said it was my second, and immediately the tone shifted. Asked me if I was looking for an internship. |
| with regards to education, what is it that causes people to get jobs they loathe (provided they intend to acquire a job they would find rewarding)? |
1. A lot of people just don't know what they want to do. If by the time you're finishing high school you still don't know what sort of job you might enjoy doing, you're basically fucked. Personally, I think the education system failed those people. It didn't just not teach them useful skills, but they didn't even have a way to gauge what they might find useful.
2. Some people want to do things nobody needs (more accurately, that the market's demand is already met), like study literature or philosophy, or basically all humanities other than some parts of linguistics. When they inevitably graduate and find themselves in the same position as a high school graduate with no useful skills they have to get whatever they can get, which in all likelihood is not going to be their dream job.
As a side-note, when I asked a coworker why he went to university to study philosophy when he could have just as easily read the books by himself, all he could answer was "to teach". Talk about pointlessness. The university should scrap that faculty and instead spend the money on, I don't know, ping-pong tables.
| Either way, it was clearly a joke. |
| If you go to college to learn about something you don't care much about, that sounds like an express road to career frustration. |
Probably, but if you end up being good at it you may not mind it seeing how you'd live comfortably.
| OK, when is something wasted? |
By definition, when something's purpose is not fulfilled. Google says, "Used... to no point." You don't have a choice to spend time, but you decide how to spend it - especially in the context of years. Kind of like money, if you spent money on a project and the project fails, the money was wasted. The original intended outcome that you spent the money did not get achieved.
| You don't have to you can't help it? Get your argument straight. |
It's by your own definition. What a person wants isn't illogical, but when their actions go against those wants. As I was saying, you don't have to do anything, but that doesn't mean that you'll actually just exist and do nothing. Just because you don't have to feel like your time was wasted doesn't mean you won't feel that. You don't want to feel like you've wasted several years of your life - all that time which could have been spent furthering yourself in one thing, was spent furthering yourself in something which failed.
| Just get your foot in the door, man. Even if you have to work for free. Right now you're paying to work. Just saying. It's up to you. |
Well, for the other guy, yes. In my case, I get to pocket some extra cash every semester from scholarships. Comparatively, I'm not making as much as had I been working, but to gain money and get closer towards a degree, it's not a bad deal.
| Aw... But I'd already been checking out belts and wedding dresses... |
I wonder which of us would be wearing the dress! ❤
EDIT:
I was reminded of my voice over that I did here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ql82of1p7I
Last edited on
| Just because you don't have to feel like your time was wasted doesn't mean you won't feel that. |
Likewise, if you want to be miserable you just need to ignore all the good things that happen to you and constantly think of the bad ones. Hang pictures all over your house of all your loved ones who've died (if possible, taken the moment they died) and never talk to anyone who may distract you from your grief.
Like I said, it's simply a matter of outlook. It's not about being happy with failure, it's about finding the silver lining.
| Hang pictures all over your house of all your loved ones who've died (if possible, taken the moment they died) |
LMAO!
Obviously your stance is correct, but it doesn't invalidate my point. You don't always have the insight needed to make the right call. And sometimes you'll regret.
| It's not about being happy with failure, it's about finding the silver lining. |
Personally, I can't really do that usually. Thoughts eat away, can only distract.