This is a postcard written from one side of the Great Millennial Switcheroo to the other: Hey, what's information technology like over in that location? Practice y'all remember what we were thinking back on this side?

To capture this moment of the Great Crossover, the Fast Visitor-Roper Starch Worldwide Survey asked members of the Fast Company customs to approximate the globe of work in terms both sublime and ridiculous, to examination the attitudinal waters for what actually matters and for what barely registers. Is it the things of the moment — the always-changing diary of who's hot and who'southward not, the celebrification of practically everything — that stir usa? Or is it the stuff of serious New Year'south resolutions — piece of work that makes a difference, life that feels in balance, the stuff of head and heart, wallet and well-being, fortune and family unit — that moves the soul? Which causes more than head scratching? The prospect of waking up to a world in which too many of the microchips that control everything from the coffeemaker to the microwave, from the Mars Pathfinder to the Nissan Pathfinder, choose this particular morning to misbehave? Or the ongoing challenge of figuring out, one time all the millennial dust has settled, exactly what kind of work will satisfy us, how much money will prove to be enough for u.s., what deeply shared values will necktie us together every bit a community, and which people will continue to earn our adoration for their contributions?

In the spirit of millennial madness, we approached this survey with an appropriate mixture of entertainment and amazement. Subsequently all, if yous tin can't pit Bill Gates confronting Oprah Winfrey in a popularity contest when the clock strikes 2000, when tin can you exercise information technology? Haven't you ever wondered how celebrities and CEOs measure up as companions on a hypothetical aeroplane ride? And whose bumper-sticker words of wisdom practice a better job of putting the last brand on our times — Jerry Seinfeld's, Forrest Gump'southward, or Nirvana's? Certain, we're in the middle of a global business organization revolution. But if you can't trip the light fantastic toe at the revolution, do you actually want to be a part of it?

Notwithstanding, despite our attempts at frivolity and foolishness, the Fast Company community one time again answered our questions with unswerving smarts and seriousness of purpose. What nosotros discovered was, in many ways, what we expected. At the plow of the millennium, the Fast Company crowd shows little evidence of euphoria or panic, of wild revelry or wide-eyed coup. This customs remains focused on the work at hand, maintaining a subdued sanity, a reasoned approach to the present and to the hereafter. Immense wealth may be falling from the skies, but Fast Visitor readers aren't jettisoning the values that brought them this far. They value performance over glitz. They seek equity for themselves and for others.

Oh, by the way, in the popularity race, it's Pecker G. over Oprah W.

Work, Money, and the Web

You find yourself with five task offers. You are equally qualified for each job, but the pay, the hours, and the organizational civilization are very unlike in each case.

Yahoo!, the Internet search-engine company, offers $100,000 a yr in salary, along with options for 1,000 shares (currently worth more than $150 apiece), which you'll become in 5 years. The hours are around-the-clock — Silicon Valley Time. The people are young, and the place is intense just fun.

Goldman Sachs, the investment-banking firm, offers $100,000 in salary and a guaranteed bonus of at least $100,000 a yr. The hours are intense. The civilisation is both cutthroat and highly politicized. But if you survive, the payoff will be large.

Ben & Jerry'southward, the water ice-cream company, offers a salary of $75,000 and the possibility of a small bonus and modest stock options. The hours are reasonable. The office is in rustic Vermont. The people are easygoing. And y'all get all the water ice cream you can eat.

Procter & Run a risk, the consumer-products manufacturer, offers $100,000 in bacon and the likelihood of a minor bonus. You'll work in Cincinnati, where people are nice. The hours are reasonable — you won't accept to work many nights or weekends — and everything about the place is stable and predictable.

The Peace Corps will pay you $20,000 a yr plus living expenses for two years. You'll work long hours in dingy quarters somewhere in Eastern Europe, but the place and the people promise to be fascinating. You're guaranteed to get your old job dorsum after yous consummate your 2-yr stint.

Which job would you choose?

Yahoo! — 24.0%
Goldman Sachs — 8.nine%
Ben & Jerry'due south — 33.1%
Procter & Gamble — 29.6%
Peace Corps — four.4%

Which chore would yous turn downward first?

Yahoo! — 14.7%
Goldman Sachs — 36.0%
Ben & Jerry's — iv.7%
Procter & Risk — 4.1%
Peace Corps — 40.5%

Sanity. Balance. Butterfat. Sure, people want the big bucks, but most of them would rather take a life. Nearly 2-thirds say that they would hunt their dreams in Vermont or Cincinnati — yes, Cincinnati — earlier toughing it out in Silicon Valley or in the gray canyons of Wall Street. Why? Ben & Jerry's and Procter & Gamble aren't new-economy stars, simply they promise a certain normality of footstep, of community, of values. Ben & Jerry's, more to the point, promises proximity to Chunky Monkey and Phish Nutrient.

An entrepreneurial minority (more men than women, and more immature people than one-time people) are pumped to alive life nonstop at Yahoo! in exchange for the prospect of an enormous payoff — well, someday. But that minority is a smaller flock (just 24% of respondents) than Net hype would have us believe. Perchance we really aren't all that envious of Web millionaires. We're certainly not envious of investment bankers: Big bonuses tin't compensate for the grinding work or the all-consuming schedule at Goldman Sachs. Why make an obscene amount of money when all you lot can spend it on are cool suits and take-out Chinese? A telling slice of data: Goldman Sachs is only slightly more than desirable than the Peace Corps, an organization at the contrary terminate of the economic spectrum.

Sooner or after, this survey indicates, it'southward not about money. At the plough of the millennium, nosotros know as well well what information technology costs to go really rich: taking enormous risks (and winning), or making enormous sacrifices. In almost cases, the really rich practise both — or else they're incredibly, outlandishly lucky. Most of u.s.a. hope for a lucky pause. But while nosotros expect, we content ourselves with more-modest accomplishments. A life of sanity and $100,000 a year suits u.s. simply fine.

As for the Peace Corps, forget it. That organization is really the least popular option among respondents between the ages of 20 and 29. Noblesse oblige has its limits. For many people, it would seem, sending a check each year to the United Style is plenty.

From each of the post-obit pairs, pick the organisation that yous recall will be more successful 10 years from at present:

Merrill Lynch — 43.half dozen%
E*Trade — 56.4%

Toys 'R' United states — 48.9%
eToys — 51.1%

Peace Corps — 43.5%
Service.com — 56.five%

Barnes & Noble — 45.viii%
Amazon.com — 54.ii%

General Motors — 81.5%
AutoNation — xviii.5%

Time — 90.2%
Slate — nine.8%

American Airlines — 44.7%
priceline.com — 55.iii%

Wal-Mart — 72.5%
eBay — 27.5%

These findings help explain the reluctance of respondents to commit to ii years in the Peace Corps. Service.com doesn't even exist, yet a solid bulk of those we surveyed think that it'southward going to eclipse the Peace Corps within a decade. In other responses, the confrontation between dirt world and due east-globe points upwardly the strengths and failings of the new online stars. Respondents see a futurity for East*Trade because the existing brokerage organization is so evidently flawed. And eToys and Amazon.com are already kicking the corresponding posteriors of Toys 'R' Us and Barnes & Noble. True, they're both losing a ton of money, only they're as well making fundamental changes in the fashion we buy stuff. And although American Airlines will no doubt be flight planes in a decade, priceline.com has carved out a powerful intermediate position equally ticket consolidator to the masses. Which company adds more value? Our respondents say priceline.com.

Only not all dotcoms are created equal — or evaluated with the aforementioned rosy optimism. Simply 27. v% predict that eBay will beat out Wal-Mart over the next decade. And while consumers may hate the old-economy automobile-buying feel, relatively few of them accept bought into the notion of getting their car via AutoNation. And Slate, in this forum, received a vote of trivial conviction — a reflection of its relative obscurity, perhaps, but as well a sign that information technology lacks utility: Readers haven't figured out what an online magazine is good for.

Your rich aunt dies and leaves yous a windfall. The terms of her will are unusual. You get $100,000 if yous want to spend the inheritance right now. You get $200,000 if you invest it for at least ten years. Or you lot get $300,000 now if y'all requite information technology all abroad to clemency. Which option would you pick?

$100,000 to spend now — 15.half-dozen%
$200,000 to invest at present — 77.0%
$300,000 to requite to charity at present — 7.4%

If yous opted to take the $200,000 inheritance from your aunt, in which one of the following would you choose to invest the coin for the next ten years?

Full general Electric stock — 50.ii%
Government securities — 29.7%
eBay stock — 20.1%

On the confront of it, $100,000 sounds like a lot of coin. Only before you rush into anything, let'south do the numbers. Have the $100,000, and that's all you get. Requite away $300,000 to clemency, and, if you're in the peak bracket, you get a tax deduction worth $99,000. That way, you'll earn some philanthropic warm-and-fuzzies (and perhaps a nifty PBS tote bag), and yous'll finish upwardly just $1,000 brusk of where you'd be if yous took the cash up front end.

Sadly, near of u.s.a. aren't in the summit tax bracket, and warm-and-fuzzies don't pay the kids' college bills. Fewer than one respondent in ten is prepared to travel the philanthropic path. But virtually aren't taking the greenbacks up front either. These are smash times — and what stirs the soul of a generation weaned on a 17-year bull market is the opportunity to strike it rich in stocks.

The unmistakable message from more than three-fourths of the survey respondents: This 18-bike economy will keep on trucking. More to the point, General Electric will. Respondents who chose to invest are more than twice as probable to sink their money into GE as they are into eBay. Jet engines and industrial controls volition still be around a decade from now, even if Jack Welch won't. Internet auctions? Who knows? And regime securities? Who cares?

Much has been said and written in the media about the sudden riches that entrepreneurs and investors have made from the Internet. Take you lot, or has anyone you know, made a lot of money by investing in, working for, or starting a Net company?

"I personally take made a lot of money from the Net" — 2.3%
"I and people I know have made money from the Net" — 9.2%
"I haven't made money from the Net, but people I know have done and so" — 20.7%
"I don't know anyone who has made a lot of coin from the Net" — 65.ii%
"Actually, I have lost coin on the Net" — ii.3%

Think well-nigh this: One-third of our respondents have fabricated money from the Net or know someone who has made money from the Net. What do we know virtually this one person in three? For i thing, he's more likely to be a man than a adult female: By 2 to one, more than men say that they take made coin from the Net. Those men are also likely to accept higher-than-average incomes. And they're more probable to exist amongst those who, at the outset of our survey, said that they would adopt to work for Yahoo! or for Goldman Sachs. And what of the residue of us — the sorry two-thirds who have missed out on the boom of a lifetime? We're scooping Cherry Garcia at Ben & Jerry'due south, and we're proud of information technology. Our personal values, if non our stock values, are in the right place. And nosotros're hoping like hell that this Net chimera pops real soon, so that we don't feel similar complete morons.

CEOs and Celebrities

Which of the following CEOs would you most like to work for in the new millennium?

Nib Gates, Microsoft — 32.ix%
Michael Eisner, Disney — 25.1%
Jeff Bezos, Amazon.com — ix.2%
Steve Jobs, Apple tree Computer — seven.2%
Jack Welch, General Electric — vi.9%
Margaret Whitman, eBay — half-dozen.v%
Michael Armstrong, AT&T — 6.0%
Lou Gerstner, IBM — iii.v%
Jack Smith, General Motors — two.9%

Time for our beauty competition. A dream team of execs vie for validation from the online throngs. When the votes are counted, in that location's no surprise about who's strutting away with the cubic-zirconia-studded tiara: Beak Gates is the richest guy in the world, and he has dominated the high-tech earth for at least the past decade. Microsoft remains undeniably, outrageously successful — as hundreds of its millionaire employees and alums can attest. Hitch your career to Gates, and you're practically guaranteed an enriching ride.

Disney's Michael Eisner has put upwards great numbers throughout his career, creating an entertainment Leviathan — yet some recent droppings in Mouseland. Here, he finishes well alee of Jeff Bezos, who honchos the Internet's hottest retailer just who has yet to demonstrate that he knows how to turn a profit. GE'southward Jack Welch, arguably the finest manager of the past fifty years, finishes out of the money — a role, in large office, of low support from lower-income respondents.

One surprise: It turns out that there are CEOs for men and CEOs for women. Gates, he's a guys' CEO: 36% of men, but just 26% of women, want to work for him. Eisner, he's a ladies' man, drawing 32% of women's votes. Welch and Armstrong appeal to men. Women like Bezos and Whitman. (Is this a Net thing?)

From each of the post-obit pairs, option the person whom y'all would rather sit adjacent to on a cross-country flight:

Jeff Bezos, CEO of Amazon.com — 44.3%
Michael Crichton, novelist — 55.seven%

Michael Eisner, CEO of Disney — 54.2%
Bruce Willis, actor — 45.8%

Pecker Gates, CEO of Microsoft — 58.1%
Oprah Winfrey, talk-show host — 41.9%

Lou Gerstner, CEO of IBM — 40.half dozen%
Michael Hashemite kingdom of jordan, retired basketball histrion — 59.iv%

Steve Jobs, CEO of Apple Computer — 49.1%
Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Fed — 50.ix%

Jack Smith, CEO of Full general Motors — 56.eight%
Jeff Gordon, race-auto driver — 43.2%

Jack Welch, CEO of General Electrical — 40.v%
Pecker Clinton, president of the U.s. — 59.5%

Margaret Whitman, CEO of eBay — 58.2%
Maya Angelou, poet — 41.eight%

And which of the following CEOs would y'all to the lowest degree like to sit next to on a cross-land flying?

Michael Eisner, Disney — 15.8%
Jack Smith, General Motors — 15.6%
Bill Gates, Microsoft — fourteen.6%
Steve Jobs, Apple Computer — 13.7%
Michael Armstrong, AT&T — 11.eight%
Jack Welch, Full general Electric — viii.seven%
Margaret Whitman, eBay — 8.0%
Lou Gerstner, IBM — 6.3%
Jeff Bezos, Amazon.com — v.6%

Don't think that big-time CEOs don't care virtually these 2 questions. Large-time CEOs have big-time egos. And deep down, they want to be liked. Absolutely, some of the matchups were lopsided from the start. Michael Jordan can have anyone one-on-one; Gerstner doesn't take that Wheaties-box smile, and he can't dunk. And any investor with money on the line would kill to spend six hours next to Greenspan, the man who — more than whatever other living being in the free world — dictates the motility of stock prices: "Hey, Al, what'southward up with Eastman Kodak?" That could exist why you never run across Greenspan flying on commercial airlines.

But who would have figured Gates to crush Oprah, possibly the most popular woman in the nation, and so handily? (Again, this is a gender thing. Guys, past more than ii to one, pick Gates; women, by almost three to 1, desire to wing with Oprah.) Or Eisner to squeak past matinee activeness-hero Bruce Willis? Sure, Willis is slightly past his leering, wisecracking prime, simply on that red-middle back from the coast, wouldn't he be more amusing than Eisner? And who would have idea that Jack Smith would beat Jeff Gordon? Consider this vote a testament to the power of achievement over glitz.

Below we list four pairs of workers, along with their estimated pay. Would you say that each person — relative to the other person in the pair — is paid also much, almost the right amount, or too little?

Jack Smith, CEO of General Motors: $3 million

Paid too much — 59.9%
Paid about the right amount — 35.6%
Paid too little — 4.6%

General Motors union assembler: $42,000

Paid too much — 12.6%
Paid nigh the correct corporeality — 62.5%
Paid besides lilliputian — 24.ix%

Sean Puffy Combs, rapper: $54 million

Paid too much — 91.0%
Paid about the correct amount — 8.vii%
Paid besides footling — 0.iii%

Entry-level Washington, DC schoolteacher: $31,000

Paid too much — 1.5%
Paid about the right amount — 21.three%
Paid besides little — 77.3%

Tiger Forest, pro golfer: $26 million

Paid too much — 76.0%
Paid near the correct amount — 23.2%
Paid too petty — 0.nine%

United States senator: $136,700

Paid likewise much — 32.i%
Paid about the right amount — 50.5%
Paid as well little — 17.three%

Margaret Whitman, CEO of eBay: $43 million

Paid too much — 85.3%
Paid about the right corporeality — fourteen.1%
Paid too petty — 0.six%

Experienced Java developer: $150,000

Paid too much – 22.8%
Paid virtually the correct amount — 68.iv%
Paid too little — eight.ix%

Okay, this was a blatant setup. We admit it. Multimillionaire CEO-celebrity versus hardworking Joe Average. What did we expect?

The ane-sidedness of the response, notwithstanding, makes a signal. When it comes to pay, few respondents believe that the marketplace machinery is working very well — especially at the top of the economic food concatenation. In an efficient market, riches should flow to some and not to others, co-ordinate to their relative contributions to order. Puffy Combs makes a bundle because he alone can produce a service that others are willing to pay for. Americans generally purchase this argument. But they also have a stiff sense of disinterestedness: At a certain level, they believe, the marketplace pays some people as well much.

Respondents have no problem, for instance, with a Java programmer making $150,000, even though that's about four times the median U.S. family unit income. At root, that salary seems fair. That's because in fluid, competitive labor markets — like the one for programmers — information about supply, demand, and pricing is well known. There'due south little dislocation, and hence trivial room for extreme results to occur. Similarly, automakers, and auto-making jobs, are plentiful enough to create a reasonable market dynamic.

At the highest reaches of our economy, there'southward greater opportunity for dislocation, in part because pay is only loosely continued to actual labor-pricing mechanisms. Margaret Whitman does not make what anyone has decided that she's worth; she makes a marketplace-determined, second-order derivative of that estimation, in the form of stock options. Those options may reflect her value, merely it's more likely that they reflect a lot of stuff over which she has footling control. When Tiger Woods takes habitation $1 million from a tournament, the purse is a testament to his golfing prowess — not a strict valuation of his contribution to lodge or his commercial value.

If you read the sports pages, you lot know that baseball game player Darryl Strawberry — already recovering from cocaine addiction — was arrested on charges of solicitation. Onetime teen tennis prodigy Jennifer Capriati did drugs and shoplifted. We know more than about sports celebrities' personal lives than e'er before, and ofttimes what we larn isn't pretty. Given that this is the case, how much do you hold with each of the following statements?

"Nosotros've lost the power to idolize sports stars as heroes, and that ability was comforting and good for you."

Completely concord — 25.four%
Somewhat agree — 54.i%
Completely disagree — 20.five%

"This is reality. Sports figures are man beings, just like everyone else, and understanding that fact is healthy."

Completely agree — 44.5%
Somewhat concord — 44.0%
Completely disagree — 11.5%

"Sports celebrities lead grotesquely distorted lives — lives that are very dissimilar from anybody else'southward — and information technology's healthy not to idolize them."

Completely agree — 30.1%
Somewhat agree — 47.1%
Completely disagree — 22.8%

Arguably, this isn't a question just about sports. It'south a proxy for our feelings about glory in general. There'southward a sense that the celebrification of everyone and everything cheapens what matters. Yet, when John Kennedy Jr.'s plane went downwards terminal summertime, nosotros stayed glued to CNN for days. Celebrity both fascinates us and repels us.

That conflict shows upwards virtually conspicuously in our attitudes toward professional person athletes. Nigh 90% of respondents agree, completely or somewhat, that sports stars are homo, "but like everyone else." At the same time, more than three-quarters say that players' lives are "grotesquely distorted" and "very different from everyone else's." Then we don't want to idolize them. Notwithstanding eighty% of usa also say that it was "comforting and healthy" to idolize sports icons in the good old days. If we could only detect a way back . . .

Yeah, the results reflect internal conflict. But they likewise tell the states that different groups have dissimilar opinions. Younger people are more likely to say that athletes are just human; older people, to say that sports idolatry was once healthy and that it is now unhealthy. Higher-income folks tend to say that it is unhealthy. And, interestingly, in response to this question, women answer no differently from men.

Perhaps the truth is that there are heroes, and so at that place are heroes. This community recognizes the value of functioning and tends to associate accomplishment with worth. Mistakes and bad behavior don't go unnoticed, just they can exist overshadowed by a bright business decision or past 1 swing of the bat.

This Millennium — and the Adjacent

Which of the following statements comes closest to your view of the new millennium?

"I curiosity at the opportunities that prevarication ahead for today's children. Because of technological innovation and global connection, their world will seem limitless compared with ours" — 41.2%

"I worry about our children'southward futurity. Tomorrow'southward world is fraught with risk and danger, and we're non providing the education or the values that kids demand to steer a audio course" — 46.three%

"The world doesn't modify much in a single generation. The opportunities and risks that today's children will confront are going to be nearly the aforementioned as those that nosotros confronted" — 12.5%

When it comes to a vision of our children'due south future, half of us are wildly optimistic, and one-half of us are profoundly troubled. Only one in eight believes that our children's lives will be pretty much similar ours. Notably, 53% of female respondents envision a future world "fraught with risk," compared with just 42% of male respondents. Men tend to marvel at their kids' opportunities. The young and the poor tend to worry; the onetime and the wealthy tend to marvel.

Let's call back about the 22nd century for a moment. Which scenario best describes what the workplace of the 22nd century will exist like?

"Star Trek": Free from concerns near material needs, people volition focus instead on personal fulfillment — 23.9%

"Star Wars": Most people will dedicate their lives to one of a small group of huge, hypercompetitive organizations — 32.7%

"Brave New World": Personal relationships volition yield in importance to scientific direction — 25.one%

"Mad Max": In a bleak world marked by violence and poverty, most people will piece of work simply to survive — 18.four%

The new millennium is only just upon us, and y'all desire us to remember about the next i already? Our respondents predict a distant future that has much in common with the nowadays. Large companies dominate the economic landscape. At the level of the individual, it's a split decision: Scientific management may override human values; or, say almost as many respondents, we may be so well provided for that we will be able to move personal fulfillment to the pinnacle of the calendar. Some say both: Work will go routinized, and self-discovery will become a primary focus of activity. So there are the voices of doom, predicting that it will plow out badly, actually badly.

There is also a dark side to all of these forecasts: Contrary to new-economy-speak, the future is not ours to create. The next millennium is coming, and nosotros practise not control our ain destiny.

Which of the following statements comes closest to capturing your thoughts virtually the concluding years of the second millennium?

"Greed is practiced" — 10.v%
"Life is similar a box of chocolates" — 21.ii%
"Here we are at present, entertain us" — 17.0%
"Shagadelic, baby!" — two.2%
"The future's so vivid, I have to wear shades" — 12.3%
"I did not have sex with that adult female" — 8.5%
"Yadda, yadda, yadda" — 28.3%

No wonder that forecasts for the next millennium vary from dim to dour: As nosotros shuffle out of the 1990s, nosotros are bound by a collective moral confusion that borders on indifference.

Forrest Gump's goofy proclamation on life ("a box of chocolates"), the choice of i respondent in five, has an upbeat ring to it. But it's besides inherently fatalistic: "You never know what you're going to become." These are non the words of people who believe that they control their own destiny. Gordon Gekko's utterance, "Greed is good," is and then '80s, but at least information technology has the ring of conviction (and, later confidence, a brusk stint in a minimum-security facility).

Fifty-fifty worse, Nirvana's need to be entertained reeks of jaded passivity, and Clinton'southward wondrous nontruth smacks of outrageous cynicism. And the winning phrase that pays: Seinfeld's "Yadda, yadda, yadda," the ultimate attestation to resigned indifference. On this score, respondents were in sync across lines of gender, historic period, and income.

Here's our have: Economic or geopolitical achievement doth non a millennium brand. We all seek satisfaction of a dissimilar sort. Truth. Beauty. Justice. Significant. Soul. And on those counts, the terminal years of the past century didn't deliver. Then plenty, already, with the one-time millennium. Been there, washed that. Yadda, yadda, yadda. Whatever.

Additional questions and answers from this Fast Company-Roper Starch Worldwide survey are bachelor at www.fastcompany.com/online/31/survey.html

Visit Roper Starch Worldwide on the Web (http://world wide web.roper.com).