[cialowicz]

I'm not following this one. Wouldn't something that's high reward and low risk also be low stress?

I'm trying to envision something that's high reward and high risk, and isn't stressful.

[econnors]

I could see truth in the sentiment that if you're receiving high reward, stress and risk are inversely correlated. e.g. if you're working at FAANG, and not working hard enough to be stressed, you're at risk of being fired. Or you're working hard enough to be stressed and therefor have low risk.

[chrisshroba]

A 40-hour a week job jumped to mind for me when I read this. Steady salary without too much risk (if you have decent job security), but half your waking hours during the week and stress that comes with that.

[thih9]

I think I follow but I'm not sure this is correct. Looks like you're saying that jobs with steady salary and job security are stressful. What would be a less stressful alternative?

[mzg]

A low-stakes job at a startup where the bulk of your compensation is equity maybe? Though that situation probably wouldn't stay low-stress for long, as you'll want to do everything you can to make those stocks valuable...

[tomjakubowski]

I'd say something like becoming a plumber satisfies that: it's hard, gross work, but it pays well and absent a breakthrough in robotics, I think has a low risk of disappearing as a career.

[Izkata]

Rephrased slightly, Low Risk + High Reward seems to me to imply Low Stress, not High Stress.