In message , at 06:35:42 on Tue, 27 Oct
2009, Buddenbrooks remarked:

I agree that people may feel constrained by family and career
restrictions, but it is a choice to allow those restrictions.

That's one of the most selfish comments I've seen in a long time.

Nonsense, a specific choice may be selfish, the fact of choices is neutral.

The only reason for you mentioning a choice in this context is to
indicate that it's possible to make a choice for one's own convenience,
that disadvantages the other family members.

It is the well referred to Career/Family balance. Farmers live and work
close to their families, long haul pilots spend the majority of their
lives at work.
Most of us have skills that give us the choice.

You are making a big assumption that it is employment prospects that
mainly govern "choices" about where someone lives. As almost all my work
is telecommuting or attending distant conferences, my "choice" of client
is therefore completely disjoint from my home location (with the
pedantic exception that I would be in difficulty living somewhere
without broadband availability).

If you travel a lot for work then it is your choice. Your skills seem
to be sought after so I expect you could find work that does not
require regular overseas travel.

In fact, the travel I was complaining about, which started the
discussion of "choices", was domestic. A trip to London by train.

If I could choose to live anywhere in the world, it might well be in a
flat overlooking Hyde Park. Why that's not very likely to happen, I will
leave as an exercise for the reader.
--
Roland Perry