I had some thought today about having, acknowledging, and dismissing feeling in a streamlined fashion. With regard to my current circumstance, the thought progression led me to what I think is still an unresolved idea, if I can recall it at all. It was that foregoing money for the sake of contributing more to what one believes is a more valuable cause is still worthwhile overall, and presumably this could be translated even back into a financial analysis at some level, even if not for the individual. Let's say there are not enough people to fill all the roles, then the roles that bring more long term benefit to society should be filled first, roughly speaking. If there are plenty of people to fill the needed roles, which is generally the case with low-skill jobs, but not the case for high-skill jobs, then basically the same analysis applies for jobs of similar skill levels. I'm not really in a place to do the numeric calculations, but intuitively this feels correct. Of course, if we cause the short term to somehow fail, this logic would be incorrect, but currently society feels like it's far from failing in the near term but near to failing in the long term. So again, my intuition is that I'm making the correct play for humans, even if it's of some minor-ish detritment to me personally.

From a personal standpoint, I have thoughts about not negotiating that seem wrong. In theory I should negotiate if it can benefit society. But, in this case, me having more money and the company entity having less doesn't benefit society, me working at the loans company doesn't benefit society, and the only thing that really benefits society is if I somehow influence the company's policies with my decision-action of staying or leaving. Presumably the decision existing has most of the same impact, regardless of whether I leave. So, I should leave, at least according to my current thinking.