It's Your Choice

Sanity. Balance. Butterfat. Sure, people want the big bucks, but most of them would rather have a life. Nearly two-thirds say that they would chase their dreams in Vermont or Cincinnati -- yes, Cincinnati -- before toughing it out in Silicon Valley or in the gray canyons of Wall Street. Why? Ben & Jerry's and Procter & Gamble aren't new-economy stars, but they promise a certain normality of pace, of community, of values. Ben & Jerry's, more to the point, promises proximity to Chunky Monkey and Phish Food.

An entrepreneurial minority (more men than women, and more young people than old people) are pumped to live life nonstop at Yahoo! in exchange for the prospect of an enormous payoff -- well, someday. But that minority is a smaller flock (just 24% of respondents) than Net hype would have us believe. Perhaps we really aren't all that envious of Web millionaires. We're certainly not envious of investment bankers: Big bonuses can't compensate for the grinding work or the all-consuming schedule at Goldman Sachs. Why make an obscene amount of money when all you can spend it on are cool suits and take-out Chinese? A telling piece of data: Goldman Sachs is only slightly more desirable than the Peace Corps, an organization at the opposite end of the economic spectrum.

Sooner or later, this survey indicates, it's not about money. At the turn of the millennium, we know too well what it costs to get really rich: taking enormous risks (and winning), or making enormous sacrifices. In most cases, the really rich do both -- or else they're incredibly, outlandishly lucky. Most of us hope for a lucky break. But while we wait, we content ourselves with more-modest accomplishments. A life of sanity and $100,000 a year suits us just fine.

As for the Peace Corps, forget it. That organization is actually the least popular option among respondents between the ages of 20 and 29. Noblesse oblige has its limits. For many people, it would seem, sending a check each year to the United Way is enough.

From each of the following pairs, pick the organization that you think will be more successful 10 years from now:

Merrill Lynch -- 43.6%
E*Trade -- 56.4%

Toys 'R' Us -- 48.9%
eToys -- 51.1%

Peace Corps -- 43.5%
Service.com -- 56.5%

Barnes & Noble -- 45.8%
Amazon.com -- 54.2%

General Motors -- 81.5%
AutoNation -- 18.5%

Time -- 90.2%
Slate -- 9.8%

American Airlines -- 44.7%
priceline.com -- 55.3%

Wal-Mart -- 72.5%
eBay -- 27.5%

These findings help explain the reluctance of respondents to commit to two years in the Peace Corps. Service.com doesn't even exist, yet a solid majority of those we surveyed think that it's going to eclipse the Peace Corps within a decade. In other responses, the confrontation between dirt world and e-world points up the strengths and failings of the new online stars. Respondents see a future for E*Trade because the existing brokerage system is so obviously flawed. And eToys and Amazon.com are already kicking the respective posteriors of Toys 'R' Us and Barnes & Noble. True, they're both losing a ton of money, but they're also making fundamental changes in the way we buy stuff. And although American Airlines will no doubt be flying planes in a decade, priceline.com has carved out a powerful intermediate position as ticket consolidator to the masses. Which company adds more value? Our respondents say priceline.com.

But not all dotcoms are created equal -- or evaluated with the same rosy optimism. Only 27. 5% predict that eBay will beat out Wal-Mart over the next decade. And while consumers may hate the old-economy car-buying experience, relatively few of them have bought into the notion of getting their car via AutoNation. And Slate, in this forum, received a vote of little confidence -- a reflection of its relative obscurity, perhaps, but also a sign that it lacks utility: Readers haven't figured out what an online magazine is good for.

Your rich aunt dies and leaves you a windfall. The terms of her will are unusual. You get $100,000 if you want to spend the inheritance right now. You get $200,000 if you invest it for at least 10 years. Or you get $300,000 now if you give it all away to charity. Which option would you pick?

$100,000 to spend now -- 15.6%
$200,000 to invest now -- 77.0%
$300,000 to give to charity now -- 7.4%

If you opted to take the $200,000 inheritance from your aunt, in which one of the following would you choose to invest the money for the next 10 years?

General Electric stock -- 50.2%
Government securities -- 29.7%
eBay stock -- 20.1%