Practicality of languages?

/prog/, I have been searching your archives, and I come to you presenting a new question: Is LISP actually as impractical as it's been said it is? I want to learn a language that I can use as a career, and I want to learn it first. Would learning CL be a mistake if say, I were to learn Ruby later on and make a living making Ruby-based software?

ITT we discuss the real, unbiased usability of languages based on a few criteria (but they should be organized separately, these qualities shouldn't affect each other.)
Fun
Usability
Career
Efficiency of code
Etc.

So far from what I've seen it goes like this:
Company-practicality:
1. C
2. C++
3. Ruby
4. Perl
5. Java
6. LISP
7. PHP
~
100. VB

Fun:
1. LISP
2. Ruby
3. Perl
5. Python
4. C
5. C++
6. Java
~
99. PHP
100. VB

Usability:
1/2. LISP
1/2. C
3. C++
4. Ruby
5. Perl
6. Python
7. Java
~
100. VB

I know there are some left out on this list, but mostly because these are the ones /prog/ talks about the most.

Discuss, and feel free to call me an uneducated retard, even though I do realize that the languages listed here aren't the same style programming.

There isn't some magical practicality scale. Lisps are excellent for rapid prototyping. So are some other languages. If this means they are practical, then they are practical, sure. Personally, I consider rapid development and ease of change to be worth far more than anything else.

You will not hurt yourself by learning a lisp first. I'd say either a lisp or lua would make the best first languages. Then take an OO language like java or python, then come back to lisp/lua and see how they would treat OO. Then do whatever the fuck you want because baby shit like coddling compilers is simple.