The last statement two postings ago was a little glib.  I was rushing off and couldn't elaborate then so let me elaborate now.

The tone of the discussion was that every job has irritants, things you don't like, people who are unpleasant.  However, you can't let these thing dictate whether you stay or go because they will always exist, whereever you are.  Whether you stay or go should depend on principle.  In our conversation, we were talking about morals and ideals, as in you are being asked to do something that is morally unacceptable, so you resign.

I tend to think, though, that even material or career-oriented values--upward mobility, better compensation--have to be situated in a context of higher principles.  For many of us, higher pay or better working conditions do not automatically motivate us to pack up or stuff and go.

Many (all?) of us in academe work not just for the pay but for the ideals, for the quality of life, for the time with our families.  Case in point: one of our faculty spent some time in industry.  His/her compensation from industry was much higher compensation than his/her compensation from Ateneo.  However, s/he eventually moved back to Ateneo because industry was consuming all his/her time and there was just no time left for the family. 

So, the point of the statement was, whatever career decision you make should stem from some vision of yourself:  what you stand for, what you are or what you want to be, what you value, what you consider important.