King of a Poor Country or Peasant of Rich Country

One philosophical question my MBA classmate asked me that I think about:

Would you rather be a king of a poor country or a peasant in a rich country?

This is an interesting question - there are trade-offs on both sides.

• When you’re king - well, you have wealth and power, even if it’s a “poor” country.
• When you’re a peasant - well, you have time?

Hmm - I would say - being a peasant would give you time. When you’re king, the expectation is on you to fix the “country’s things”, like problems peasants have.

Peasants may not have any possessions, the expectations on them are to… disappear? So they have time and freedom.

• Being a king of a poor country, the work will be to make the country richer.
• Being a peasant in a rich country, the work will be to make yourself richer.

Assuming success, the legacy one would leave in either situation would be similar - the difference is the number of people that remember you.

I thought I had an answer - as I write this and dive more into it, I start to think different aspects to this question.

I start to ask myself: what kind of work do I want to do? How much of a legacy do I want to leave behind?

I bet my answer will change over time - if I had to answer, I would prefer to be a peasant in a rich country for now. The main reason: I value having time and freedom.

Let’s revisit this question again and see!