You're right, if one takes the parable literally. No doubt very few subsistence fishermen would recognize themselves in the story.

But I suspect that, like most parables, this one isn't meant to be taken literally. It's illustrating a psychological point, the folly of treating life as a means to an end. There's great risk in devoting one's life to something not for its own sake but because one assumes that, somehow later, happiness will result.

I appreciate the parable because, like many people, I need to be reminded to examine that assumption.

Personally, I prefer to redefine "success" to be whatever I already have, thus at all times am I am a success!

Well, success actually is the ability to be able to redefine "success" to be whatever you already have. So, you succeeded there too.

I like the point that you took away from the parable. However, most of the time someone shows me a parable like this it is to criticize the modern capitalist, consumptionist lifestyle. These critics idealize the primitive and believe that economic progress has made us corrupt and unhappy (although, strangely, you never see them moving to any of the primitive countries they idealize). Rarely do they understand the full consequences of the ideas they support. Nothing makes me angrier than the anti-materialists except maybe the legions bitching about income-inequality, which strangely often are the same people.

I dislike the parable for reasons different than yours. I do see the point though, and it is humorous enough to make me not "hate" it.

The whole process the MBA mentioned revolves around increasing profits as an end. If that MBA was a bit more compassionate, his strategic mind would make him capable of utilizing resources for greater distributed benefit; he could help feed extra mouths than simply one man and his family. Now that would be an important difference. If the MBA were more compassionate, it really wouldn't be about minimizing the risks he faces daily. Essentially, it wouldn't be about utilizing his skills to concentrate wealth into his hands; it would be about applying his talents for greater efficiency. Obviously, I read it from a romantic POV, and dislike it because both perspectives are unabashedly self-serving.

I first heard this story from a kid who tried to philosophize to me his hedonistic lifestyle; he was so myopic for a college student, I couldn't imagine how he was brought up.

I see your point about money mitigating certain risks, however, people engage in risky behavior all the time in order to gain some joy. Skiing, skydiving, and if you want to get closer to home, driving a car are all risky behaviors. The point of the story to me at least is that the fishermen made the very same value vs. risk judgments a businessman might make and decided that the risk of his lifestyle was worth the reward of being able to enjoy his family and friends fully right at that very moment, rather than in some distant hopeful future. Both are fully valid ways of looking at the world but the two men simply made different calls based on what was most important to them.

+1. Poverty is only agreeable to those who don't have to live with it.