In a sort of way, it feels generalized and stereotyped when presented as an absolute. Either you work a job that sucks your soul and get all the money you'd want or need to do something, or work a job you're satisfied with but you dont get many returns aside from general euphoria. Either you are unhappy with financial potential to do anything else, or happy whilst barely managing to do anything financially and living life with merely your bare necessities. Though I'd sacrifice happiness, of which I've never had much of anyways, I'd probably go for doing something with potential.
How much money you make shouldn't define what you do for the world, either. With a lot of money, you can create small organizations or programs to help do things for people, or with very little money, you can do a few things and work within that small organization or program to improve people's lives while content with your own.
Then again, it's always a matter of perspective, and depends on what you value more. It doesn't have to be valued as merely "more money, or more happiness", but it seems like money can also define potential sometimes.
You can use that money properly and sparingly for something that provides happiness, while having the potential to do more. So for now, I'll use that analysis and choose Money.
Besides, if you're not happy, you'll be doing what you can to make yourself happy. If helping other people makes you happy, use your money and potential to make everyone else happy, and eventually, you might make yourself happy as a result.
It's about what you do with what you choose.
EDIT: FUCK SOMEHOW I GOT NINJA'D WHILE I WAS TYPING EVERYTHING
Well, at least this is easier to choose. Efficiency, obviously. Even when it sacrifices comfort, I can get things done and produce satisfactory results as it indirectly bring me comfort.
- - -
Simplicity or Complexity?