...have a little money and live in a place where there are A LOT of things to do?
OR
...have a LOT of money and live in a place where there is nothing to do?
Seriously, comment.
What would you rather do?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
11 comments:
If my house were small, but clean and nice, than probably A. Depends on how you define "a lot to do." Totally miss Pasadena but also love the space of my home. It's such a toss up.
it has nothing to do with money...it has everything to do with where the Lord wants you...
keep praying....
Find another place that has enough to do and you have enough money!! Does this have to do with living in CA or UT? One thing with having a lot of money you can always visit that place that has a lot to do...becuase you have the money! But I do agree with "dodds" it's where the Lord wants you! Good luck! In a few months when we are moved to Ut I'd love to get together with ya and do lunch or something! Let me know!
I feel like this is a multiple choice test question and the real answer is C: NEI (not enough information)
Sorry, you're on your own. (Besides the Dodds' advice.)
What are we talking about here - Kansas and New York City? As we enter busy season for Matt and he starts loathing his job, I think that more than anything it is about where he will be happy in his work. Hopefully that happens to be in a job where there is enough money to keep everyone housed, clothed and put the 4 year old in a 3 day a week preschool. Love ya good luck. Go to the Temple and where you are supposed to be will just come.
Of course with the caveat that you must do what you feel is right, I'd go with the place with money. It would give you options. Having little money just makes you feel stuck.
I agree with dodds comment....that being said, I would say A. I would go for more life experiences. Any chance Dallas is a possibility? More info! We are intrigued!
That's a tough one! I seriously don't know what I would choose, but I have to say that if you didn't have a lot of money, how could you do the things there are to do in that place???
That is a tough question. I would rather . . . live in Denver! Come on out here! But seriously, I think if you want the best of both worlds, you might want to live in the suburbs near a big city. Good luck!
hmmm... maybe I'm just the odd man out here - but based on your forced decision between choice A and B - I think I'd take the place with things to do and trust that the money will work itself out. All the money in the world can't buy you sunshine or year round activities. What's the point of having money and being cooped up bcz it's 1) too hot or 2) too cold 80% of the year. At least, given the two options and having tried both - that's what Matt and I finally decided.
I think you will know in your gut what feels right. There is more to a place than money and fun. I think it will all just feel right once the job is offered. But, given only those options, I would go with activity. The size of your house, car, etc don't really matter in life. It is all about your experiences and what you do with your time. Bigger cities have the culture that your children will learn from. (come to CA, come to CA)! But I am obviously biased! Can't wait to hear what you decide!
Post a Comment