[HN Gopher] Be careful how you pay the bills
___________________________________________________________________
Be careful how you pay the bills
Author : vitabenes
Score : 121 points
Date : 2022-07-19 11:08 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (blog.nateliason.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (blog.nateliason.com)
| [deleted]
| meowzero wrote:
| It depends on the person, their stage in life, and many other
| factors why people do what they do.
|
| I went through something similar. I had to choose between chasing
| my passion or security. I chose security. Things get real when
| you get older, your body starts falling apart, you need to
| provide for family, etc.
|
| Even if you choose to follow your passions, the lure of security
| will come. The author gives an example of writers needing to
| write pulp novels, courses, copywriting, or any other boring
| stuff.
|
| And even if you do end up doing your passions and still live
| comfortably, is it really worth it? Would your passions become
| monotonous and cause you to seek other passions?
| anewpersonality wrote:
| Interesting insight into the mindset of an internet hustler
|
| Does anything they do contribute to society?
| [deleted]
| jacknews wrote:
| It's natural to work hard, in order to then spend time doing
| things you enjoy.
|
| But it's important to understand that to make a living at
| something, especially something like writing, you need to be good
| at it, not just enjoy it.
| BlargMcLarg wrote:
| Software development is pretty much testament to the opposite,
| you can very much make a living being average or even below
| average.
|
| The passion industries are the ones requiring high amounts of
| dedication. For good reasons.
| swagasaurus-rex wrote:
| Seems to me the passion industries either pay less
| (education, game dev, social or environmental work) due to
| high supply of candidates, or demand way too much (medicine,
| lawyers, cutting edge sciences)
|
| I for one would like to see my doctors, nurses and police
| officers well rested and relaxed.
| BlargMcLarg wrote:
| It's just supply and demand putting its greasy fingers in
| everything combined with poor unionization from the
| employee side (of their own accord, often enough).
|
| Nurses could force better circumstances if they
| collectively accepted to work more sane shifts and make
| society deal with the problem of too few nurses instead.
|
| Animators could be better if they stopped accepting working
| 60+ hours to push animation which gets bingewatched for a
| few cents in a day.
|
| But we collectively accept the circumstances, and so a few
| years of intense practicing drawing is paid worse than
| taking a bootcamp on how to write API calls and play
| planning poker (poorly).
| ghaff wrote:
| The bar for many professions to earn a living (whatever that
| means exactly) is probably minimal competence--which may be
| easier for some in some professions than others in other
| professions.
|
| Then, as you say, "passion industries" probably require some
| combination of talent/hard work/luck no matter who you are to
| do more than scrape by--if that.
| spoonjim wrote:
| Minimum competence to earn a living as a basketball player
| is much higher than minimum competence required to earn a
| living as a software engineer.
| ghaff wrote:
| Tournament jobs is the general term. [1] It's also the
| case that some professions have a rather limited number
| of slots that offer someone a decent living of which
| professional sports leagues are a good example. Basically
| being the 300th best software developer (or engineer or
| chemist etc.) probably means you can get a pretty good
| job. Being the 300th best basketball player may mean
| you're a car salesman or teaching high school gym
| classes.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tournament_theory
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| There are 450 NBA players, so being the 300th best
| basketball player gives you a chance of playing the NBA
| or maybe in China.
| Ekaros wrote:
| Team sports go deep. Individual sports quite a lot less.
| 300th best swimmer or runner likely won't do that well.
| On other hand 300th best in sport with reasonably sized
| team means you are either on top level or level just
| below that. Which usually mean reasonable living.
| spoonjim wrote:
| Yes but the 30,000th best software engineer is making $1
| million working at Google.
| cbanek wrote:
| The work of a mediocre software developer is not only not
| done, it's self sustaining.
| kneel wrote:
| Nat has a great podcast that he has recently restarted.
|
| https://madeyouthinkpodcast.com/
| sarchertech wrote:
| I followed the author's links to the course they got started
| with, and it's all just very self referential.
|
| Buy this course I'm selling. It will teach you to do the stuff I
| did to make this thing that I got you to pay me for.
| DeRock wrote:
| Its a pyramid scheme distilled to the fundamentals.
| nathanvanfleet wrote:
| I skimmed. 4-hour workweek some years ago (I downloaded it) and
| I realized that it was pretty meta. The thing you're reading is
| the thing he's "teaching" you to do. This whole article smacks
| of that. "Wow my passive income was just too effective." I'm
| not crying that he doesn't have time to write. It sounds like
| if he really had that time dedicated to writing he would churn
| out more self help block posts or booklets anyway. He doesn't
| seem to describe any other sort of writing that he does? Just
| navel gazing, tallying his passive income etc? I kind of wish
| he had no time at all to write.
| beckingz wrote:
| The secret to becoming rich: "get people to pay you to tell
| them the secret to becoming rich"
| spelunker wrote:
| Most of the blog post just feels like a humblebrag.
| abnercoimbre wrote:
| Barely made it halfway through. The post was largely an
| exercise in bragging.
| kritiko wrote:
| Yes, he's very much in the educational product passive income
| space.
|
| At the end of the day most "gurus" doing this seem to fall into
| it and it gets a bit recursive. Ramit Sethi seems like an
| archetypical influencer here.
| allenu wrote:
| I've noticed this too in the indie hackers community. Some
| people look around and realize they're part of a gold rush
| and then realize it's more lucrative to sell shovels. The
| more shovels you sell, the more successful you become, and
| the more you self-promote your success.
| borroka wrote:
| From the blog posts, it seems to me that he is not very keen on
| writing. I could be wrong. But when you start finding an excuse a
| day not to do what you theoretically think you should do, maybe
| the theory is wrong. Maybe he likes the idea of being a writer,
| but without being a writer.
|
| Also, writing means many things. There are a lot of books, think
| of business books, that are written because it is the most
| effective way to provide a certain kind of information to a wide
| audience. Watching a video seems like a waste of time before,
| during, and after. Reading a book, most of the time, even if the
| information in it is ridiculous and of poor quality, does not
| seem like a waste of time. And there is "writing" like, say,
| Hemingway, James Salter thought about writing. Are we talking
| about "writing" the way Salter intended it or about "presenting
| information in a book"? Does "I like to write" means "I like to
| provide information" or it means "I like to use the written word
| specifically to present ideas"?
|
| Rossellini, the famous director, said that he was not just a film
| director, but an artist and disseminator using whatever medium he
| thought was the most appropriate in order to show his ideas or
| his view of the world.
|
| I have almost stopped reading recent books. I find them
| formulaic, winking at the "mythical" audience and what they want,
| which most of the time is cheap entertainment. There is an author
| I liked, Adrian McKinty, who had written a series of books set in
| Belfast at the time of the Troubles. It was a joy to read them.
| They were erudite and had a great rhythm. But he found himself
| forced to become an Uber driver to pay the bills--the books were
| not selling.
|
| Then, with the support of Don Winslow and Winslow's agent, he was
| able to break through with a book, The Chain, which was so
| formulaic, poorly written and full of the adjectives and adverbs
| that make college-educated people drool, that I found it hard to
| recognize him as the same author of the series set in the
| Troubles era. It was very good for him and disappointing for me.
|
| I am now reading novels written between the 1930s and the 1960s,
| and although each decade has its sins, I sense that most authors
| were not that much concerned about their audience, were not
| corrupted by literary agents and book clubs, but wrote what they,
| and not others, wanted to write.
| janandonly wrote:
| So this author is anxious about not being able to pay the bills.
| And this hinders him from pursuing his true calling, which is
| writing.
|
| Well, if I had a side gig that raked in $2000 per month steady
| then I would be a writer for sure. I would just not try to live
| in Manhattan. Problem of thought money solved.
| meowzero wrote:
| That's probably one part. But a young, hip, professional like
| this author (based on his writing, that's what he seems like)
| probably doesn't want to live in a suburb in Ohio, even though
| he could be much more comfortable there with his $2000 passive
| income, which could allow him to follow his dreams of writing.
|
| There is a reason why artists go to places like NY or other
| HCOL places. There are other people like them. It's probably
| easier to find inspiration and meet peers at those places.
| buscoquadnary wrote:
| The most prolific writer of our era lives in Utah and has
| most of his life.
|
| He wants to be trendy hip and part of the artistic in crowd
| more than he wants to write.
| xoxxala wrote:
| Utah writer is Brandon Sanderson?
| buscoquadnary wrote:
| Yeah. You might not like his writing but no one can say
| he doesn't produce. I think he is up to a novel every
| year usually with a novella thrown in as well.
| enominezerum wrote:
| But author wants to surround themselves with smart people per
| another of their postings, obviously this can't be done in low
| cost of living areas...
| plainnoodles wrote:
| The problem is that the author probably likes manhattan for
| various reasons that you can't just move outside of manhattan,
| like:
|
| - family nearby
|
| - friends nearby
|
| - as a consequence of the above two: support network is in
| manhattan
|
| - enjoying the local parks/scene/etc
|
| I grew up in <midwest plains city> and then moved to <rival
| midwest plains city> for a long while after college, eventually
| moving back to my home city because that's where all my family
| was.
|
| It was a hard move in _both directions_ and all things
| considered, I didn 't even move that far. In city B, I missed
| my family and the stuff there was to do in city A. But after
| moving back, I now miss a lot of the things we did in B. And I
| don't even consider myself to be someone to particularly likes
| leaving my house!
|
| Advice that tells people to "just move" is pretty shortsighted,
| I think. I really doubt OP moved to manhattan just to be able
| to be snooty about living in an expensive city, or something,
| which is honestly how I kind of read these kinds of advice -
| though it's probably not a very charitable read of your
| argument, for which I apologize.
| buscoquadnary wrote:
| Ah so now it's transformed from I want to be a writer to I
| want to be a writer in Manhattan specifically, and I'm sure
| there are a lot of other caveats.
|
| Do you want me to tell you about someone who really has a
| passion for writing. Brandon Sanderson, he loved writing so
| much that in college he got a job at a desk clerk at a hotel
| at night just so he could write more. He writes "novellas" on
| his flights for fun just because he can, during COVID he
| wrote 4 more novels just for funsies to deal with the
| anxiety.
|
| A lot of people say they have a passion what they have is an
| interest. Anyone who has a real honest to God burning passion
| is going to be doing it regardless of anything else just
| because they love it.
|
| Alot of people think they have a passion but really they just
| kind of like the idea doing something that seems easier.
| dataflow wrote:
| > A lot of people say they have a passion what they have is
| an interest. Anyone who has a real honest to God burning
| passion is going to be doing it regardless of anything else
| just because they love it.
|
| You're confusing "would you be pursuing that passion
| regardless of other factors" with "would/should you
| sacrifice other aspects of your life if you could still
| follow that one passion".
|
| It's not about the circumstances under which you're willing
| to still follow your passion. It's about what sacrifices
| you're willing to make in your life, regardless of your
| passion. e.g., you might be willing to go to prison or live
| in a dumpster and still love writing books so much that
| you'd continue doing that, but your love for writing books
| doesn't imply you should be willing to go live in a
| dumpster. The other factors still matter in your life. They
| just won't get in the way of you writing, is all.
| projectazorian wrote:
| A lot of people in creative fields thrive off the presence
| of other creatives around them with whom they can discuss
| ideas, etc. NYC is hard to beat for that. You're also
| likely to come across more opportunities to get your work
| published if you live in one of the centers of the global
| publishing industry.
|
| People choose to live in NYC for reasons other than
| narcissism or lifestyle amenities - for many creative
| fields (especially anything "high culture") it is
| objectively the best, sometimes the only, place to be if
| you want to develop your career.
|
| And I'm sorry but if quantity written had any relevance on
| one's seriousness as an author then Stephen King would be
| the greatest English-language author of all time.
| hoistbypetard wrote:
| > And I'm sorry but if quantity written had any relevance
| on one's seriousness as an author then Stephen King would
| be the greatest English-language author of all time.
|
| While I would never reach for that kind of superlative,
| and I definitely don't think it's related to quantity
| written, I do think Stephen King is an exceptionally good
| English-language author.
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| This whole "you aren't a _real_ <x> unless you suffer
| through <y>" is just as unhealthy for authors as it is for
| programmers. Just because someone isn't grinding out
| leetcode on their lunchbreak or novellas on flights doesn't
| mean they don't have a genuine love and passion for the
| underlying art. Sanderson is an exceptional author,
| emphasis on _exceptional_. Most people would burn out at
| the pace he sets.
| buscoquadnary wrote:
| My point wasn't to say your aren't a real writer unless
| you write like he does it was to illustrate what a real
| love and burning passion is.
|
| A lot of us here think we would love to but physicists as
| it is all so interesting but we can't because of our
| jobs. The greatest physicist since Newton couldn't get a
| job as a physicist but loved it so much that he spent any
| spare time he had working on it and thinking about it and
| obsessing over it.
|
| If you really actually love something you'll find a way
| to do it, otherwise it's a hobby. Hobbies are good there
| is nothing wrong with it. But if you really feel a
| burning desire to do something you'd do it regardless of
| finances and time because you won't be able to stop
| yourself from doing it.
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| Speaking from personal experience, that's not true. I
| truly loved being an archaeologist, but I also enjoy the
| creature comforts of bathing, housing, and having access
| to the basic institutions of society like voting or
| dating. Pursuing one effectively meant giving up the
| others, so I returned to my more moderate (and
| financially rewarding) love of tech.
| meowzero wrote:
| I agree with you to some extent.
|
| There are exceptions like your examples. There are
| probably others who do have strong passions where they
| obsess over their art and still want to move to a place
| where other artist like themselves are.
|
| That's probably why Paris was the place to be if you were
| an aspiring impressionist painter in the 19th century.
| Renoir, Monet, etc probably were passionate about their
| art. And being in close proximity probably helped each
| other in positive ways.
| allenu wrote:
| > A lot of people say they have a passion what they have is
| an interest. Anyone who has a real honest to God burning
| passion is going to be doing it regardless of anything else
| just because they love it.
|
| This reminds me of a part of a Ken Robinson talk (maybe
| it's a TED Talk), where he describes talking to a friend
| after a musical performance. He tells his friend, "I'd love
| to be able to do what you do on the stage." And his friends
| basically tells him, "No, you don't. If you wanted to do
| what I do, you'd be practicing on your guitar daily. What
| you want is the praise and benefits of the hard work. You
| don't actually want to do what I do."
| the_watcher wrote:
| The author lives in Austin. He used to live in Manhattan.
| thenerdhead wrote:
| I've been inspired by Nat's journey for awhile. I always had the
| impression that he was doing quite well financially from all the
| self-help/teaching products, mobile apps, and SEO business he's
| built.
|
| I stopped following him when he got into crypto though. I don't
| quite understand the article's point if the money in crypto was
| "too good". Does that mean something crashed to the point of not
| being able to live sustainably off of?
|
| I wrote a little bit about this phenomena the article talks about
| of "distracted from distraction by distraction":
|
| https://jondouglas.dev/distracted-from-distraction-by-distra...
| 11101010001100 wrote:
| At least crypto helped you figure out that at the end of the
| day, it's just business.
| andrewfromx wrote:
| "Jason needs to stop interrupting Sacks" very funny line.
| sys_64738 wrote:
| I thought this was going to be about the dangers of paying bills
| online. Clearly not.
| GCA10 wrote:
| Long-time writer here. Couple of thoughts.
|
| Yes, conjuring up the right words can be a b*tch, and it's so
| tempting to step away from the keyboard in favor of something
| that's simpler or more lucrative. But the magnet that keeps
| pulling me back -- and making it easier -- is this sense that
| people out there genuinely need the story or lessons that I'm
| trying to convey.
|
| Start with: Who's my audience? Then: What's my message? Then: Why
| do they need this? Get solid about all three of these, and a lot
| of good things happen. You'll press ahead with flawed but fixable
| first drafts. You'll come back and do the rewrite necessary to
| get it better. And when your confidence flags, you'll get revived
| by connecting with readers, friends, fans, etc. who want and need
| you to succeed.
|
| Writing may seem like a solo sport. In a lot of ways it is. But
| the more you can conjure up a community that cares, the stronger
| you'll be.
| Alex3917 wrote:
| I totally get the point of wanting to write things that benefit
| others, or even society at large. But why aspire to earn your
| living from writing? That makes less sense to me.
|
| E.g. given the choice, I'd rather get paid for having written
| software than for writing software.
| egypturnash wrote:
| So I got some bad news for you, dude. It sounds like you spent
| all this time not writing much, if at all. There's only one way
| to get better at a creative pursuit and that is to keep doing it.
| That means you're no closer to being good enough at writing to
| earn a living at it than you were when you started, never mind
| write anything "great".
|
| On the other hand it also sounds like you spent a lot of time
| learning to sell shit, and selling your stuff _is_ an important
| part of making "creative work" worthwhile. The dude who draws
| "The Oatmeal" is a terrible artist, for instance, but his SEO
| skills sure have made him a lot of money with his bad drawings.
| So you might be able to make money selling shitty writing. Nobody
| will probably ever say "there goes a great writer" when you're
| about to die, though.
| enominezerum wrote:
| The overall vibe I got from reading that post and a few more by
| Nate is "I found success, you can to, give me money to find out
| how."
|
| There are also quite a few posts arguing against typical
| financial wisdom. Things like "yea, I could have made some
| decent returns investing my money, but it permitted me to
| become who I am" and "you don't need a budget", which all just
| starts linking back to referral links and other things that
| make Nate money.
|
| The page about not needing a budget and that it eats into your
| productive time is extremely BS. Dude knows this, but it is
| something that will prey on financially illiterate people who
| are looking an excuse 'oh, this rich dude Nate said I didn't
| need a budget'. It also sucks because he then talks about
| automating credit card payments, if you don't have a budget and
| don't track your spending that is a HUGE recipe for disaster.
|
| Even some of this writings about wealth vs money, while
| thoughtful in how they convey the concepts, fail to account for
| other concerns. Pointing out that a job only pays you while you
| work, but something like real estate rental may generate
| wealth, ignores just how much more complication there is in the
| later.
|
| Which is my final complaint. I am not seeing the nitty gritty
| truth of just how much work is being put in in any of his
| writings. He touches on things briefly, but he doesn't really
| convey that there is a huge startup burden that is incredibly
| risky everytime you start something like building wealth.
| 8bitsrule wrote:
| > I would care a lot though if you told me I never wrote anything
| great. That's what I'm most afraid to fail at....
|
| Sounds like he's always taking care of the bills from others but
| running away from the bills he owes himself. Giving writing a
| real shot might mean giving up running each day until after there
| are at least a hundred words on that day's blank page. (36,500
| words of first draft each year.) Prime the pump every day.
| f0e4c2f7 wrote:
| I enjoyed the article and could relate to large parts.
|
| Check out Substack. Probably the most straightforward way for
| writers to make money today and you still own the content.
|
| Ghost.org is also interesting for creating a self hosted version.
|
| I think it's also good to have what you love at the core of what
| you do, but there may be other parts of the system / funnel that
| mostly serve to let you work on the thing you love (TikTok's,
| courses etc).
| readme wrote:
| Here in my garage, just bought this new Lamborghini here. It's
| fun to drive up here in the Hollywood hills.
| adrianmsmith wrote:
| I think the fear of failure (of something we really care about)
| leads us to procrastinate and find diversions. I think "In order
| to do my passion X, I first need to do Y e.g. earn some money" is
| often just a distraction.
|
| The brain does this to us because if we don't do X we can
| continue to believe that we'll be successful at it if we do do
| it. Whereas if we do actually do it, we might fail, which will be
| hard to take.
|
| If you find yourself thinking in that direction, I think it's
| always better to just go ahead and do the X if at all possible.
| You'll fail, you'll learn, etc.
| throwk8s wrote:
| > Whereas if we do actually do it, we might fail, which will be
| hard to take.
|
| It's hard to take because unless you've already got substantial
| financial security, you may end up broke, and may no longer
| have any readily available "for-the-money" job opportunities
| afterward.
| kitsunesoba wrote:
| This is the big thing for me. I know full well that failure
| is not only possible but highly likely, and that the price is
| my financial safety net being expended. The ego hit isn't the
| problem, it's the resulting inability to pay bills.
|
| Thankfully I like my day job quite a lot so my strategy has
| been to try to drive down cost of living where reasonable and
| accumulate more padding than is actually necessary, so when I
| finally commit to doing my own thing I'll be able to fund
| multiple attempts, preferably with some downtime between each
| to prevent burnout. Success is still anything but guaranteed
| but I figure that my chances are better that way than if I
| were stressed and in a hurry trying to make things work
| before my bank account ran dry.
| ModernMech wrote:
| I feel like that's reasonable, but I've never attempted it
| because I think I would do the same thing with money that I
| do with time; fritter it away until I get desperate enough
| to light a fire under my ass.
| r3trohack3r wrote:
| Not OP but I read this as it's hard for the ego to take.
|
| Even for bets that require little financial investment (i.e.
| digging deeper into physics) and occupy R&R time - failing
| can be hard to take.
|
| We like to believe we are the version of ourselves capable of
| doing anything. If you do nothing - you can die believing you
| wasted your potential. If you do something and fail to meet
| your own expectations, you can die knowing there wasn't any
| potential there to waste.
| allenu wrote:
| This is so true. I think the fantasy that we have the
| capacity to do amazing things in our lives, but there's
| some external force stopping us, is a lovely, ego-saving
| one.
|
| I've always thought, I have some great ideas and if I'm
| ever able to take some time off, I can build something that
| will surely be successful. A few months ago, I decided that
| this is as good a time at any at striking out on my own, so
| I quit my job to pursue my own projects.
|
| With a few months under my belt, I'm realizing, wow it's
| not that easy. Doubt starts creeping in: Maybe I don't have
| what it takes. The fantasy I had is starting to crumble a
| little bit and I start to wonder, if I give up on this
| dream, what other fantasy can I fall back on when times are
| tough and I want to dream of a better future?
| mjr00 wrote:
| > I think the fear of failure (of something we really care
| about) leads us to procrastinate and find diversions.
|
| Absolutely, you see this all the time in creative fields.
| People want to believe they can be the next ( _insert their
| favorite musician /author/artist/etc here_), and as long as
| they don't make a sincere attempt at it, the possibility will
| continue to exist. If only they had more money, or time! That's
| the only thing stopping them -- as long as it's not actually
| attempted, this thinking can't be disproven!
| cortesoft wrote:
| > My ideal work life is to write about whatever I want, however I
| want, and be able to turn that into a comfortable living.
|
| I am always torn when I read something like this. On one hand, I
| want people to be able to pursue their passions. On the other
| hand, I know that it is impossible for the world to function if
| everyone got to only do what they want.
|
| This person wants to be able to earn a living doing whatever they
| want, but they also want to enjoy the benefits of other people
| doing things they don't want to do. They want to be able to
| travel, but that requires other people to do a lot of labor they
| probably don't want to do. The boarding agent, flight attendant,
| and pilots likely all don't want to be doing what they are doing
| while he flies. The person who cleans the plane and loads the
| luggage aren't doing what they want to be doing.
|
| This is going to apply for so much of what the author is going to
| expect from others to support his lifestyle of doing whatever he
| wants whenever he wants. He wants to write while other people
| grow his food, provide his infrastructure, the services he
| requires.
|
| In the end, I don't think it is a healthy goal for people to
| expect to not have to do work that they don't want to do. Sure,
| it might turn out that you can support yourself doing what you
| wanted to do anyway (although even then you will probably have to
| do a lot of stuff that isn't what you want to do, too), but I
| don't think you should expect it or define success in life as
| being able to do that.
| m463 wrote:
| I think of wall street, google and others hiring the brightest
| minds to assure their revenues...
|
| Meanwhile, if a small fraction of those minds worked on a more
| efficient toilet, or desalinating water the ROI for society
| would be significantly higher.
|
| But I guess market forces are at work. and they make it
| possible for people to be paid for growing food or building
| infrastructure in accordance with demand.
| jrm4 wrote:
| I could not possibly disagree with this sort of "everybody has
| to work" view more; I think it's the primary _problem_ with our
| current society if you could boil it down to that. Thorstein
| Veblen said it better than I ever could.
|
| More precisely, I suppose, it's not the factual content that I
| have a problem with. It's technically true, but it also doesn't
| need to be said. It's like telling a human to keep breathing.
| So instead, it serves the purpose of contributing to a society
| that values "sacrificial work" too much.
| bluefirebrand wrote:
| So who gets to decide who has to do the necessary work for
| society to function and who gets to sit around and do nothing
| except benefit from their work?
|
| Do you have an equitable way to solve this issue?
|
| Or maybe people who don't do strictly necessary work still
| need to do something. And maybe you consider that
| "sacrificial", I consider it "contributing"
| jrm4 wrote:
| I do, because it's not actually that big of an issue. The
| correct answer here is "localism." What would it look like
| in your town? I don't know, but I don't need to. Just
| ensure that small groups are able to figure it out for
| themselves.
|
| The real harm isn't the imaginary laziness you fear here..
| It's scaled political power that allows groups to exploit
| others.
| yibg wrote:
| Where would a small group of people get their electricity
| or medicines? What if none of the small groups of people
| wants to develop medicines? This isn't a solution, it's
| just handwaving things away.
| epups wrote:
| That makes no sense. Most stuff you consume is not
| produced locally. And even then, why would I want to be a
| local firefighter or whatever if some other people get to
| sit on their ass every day?
| xmprt wrote:
| How is localism supposed to enable things like mobile
| phones, internet, video games, movies, travel, etc.,
| function? You're suggestion is essentially to go back to
| the stone age. Additionally, wouldn't localism require
| more people to do things that they don't enjoy? For
| example, I'm not a fan of farming and I don't think many
| of my neighbors are either but fortunately, we're all
| able to eat pretty much any dish we like because of the
| food shipped from distant farms every day.
|
| > What would it look like in your town? I don't know, but
| I don't need to
|
| This sounds a lot like a non-answer. Perhaps I would
| understand what you're talking about better if you
| explained how you believe it would work in your town
| where you do have more context.
| swayvil wrote:
| You think that we need people doing stuff they don't want to do
| in order for the world to function.
|
| Ok. But how much?
|
| For example, somebody needs to clean the sewers. But does
| anybody need to do that 40 hours a week?
|
| How about 4 hours a week?
|
| I dunno about you but I could do any horrible job if it's only
| 4 hours a week.
|
| And then I could spend the rest of my time doing my fun job
| and/or whatever I feel like doing.
|
| That would be pretty close to doing only what I want.
|
| How does that work for you?
| Bubble_Pop_22 wrote:
| > but I don't think you should expect it or define success in
| life as being able to do that.
|
| Why not? Maximum consumption with minimum amount of work is the
| very definition of success in every process.
| iglio wrote:
| What you say is true and necessary today with the limited
| deployment of automation in the world.
|
| However, it needn't be that way forever:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fully_Automated_Luxury_Commu...
| colineartheta wrote:
| I'm rather ambivalent about it all myself, but just in case
| anybody else is curious I've found Nihislist Communism [1] to
| be the most coherently argued critique of FALC (and other
| utopian Marxist ideologies).
|
| [1] https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/monsieur-dupont-
| nihi...
| dasil003 wrote:
| I feel like this framing conflates personal and societal
| responsibility in an unhealthy way. At the end of the day we
| all benefit from specialization, that's the entire basis for
| our modern standard of living. I don't think it's the
| individual's responsibility to ensure that things are fair at a
| societal level. Not only would it be impossible given personal
| preferences and the subjective experience of work, but it can
| also have negative psychological consequences if one believes
| that work is not morally valuable if one doesn't dislike it.
|
| Now, if the OA felt entitled to his chosen career path
| regardless of economic reality then I agree that would be
| uncool, but I'm not seeing that here. The author is not looking
| for a handout. He is simply grappling with the tradeoff between
| optimizing for max remuneration vs the nature of the work
| itself.
| frittata wrote:
| I've co-founded two startups and the biggest surprise/lesson
| for me was that most people don't want to forge their own path
| and customize every detail of their life. I had co-founders in
| each who after leaving our startups went on to 'normal' jobs
| and are much happier now.
|
| There are without a doubt flight attendants who hate their job,
| but I'd guess that most of them like their jobs and like the
| structure and accountability that is provided to them, and not
| having to figure out every detail themself.
|
| And then there are people like myself who can't stand being
| told what to work on and how to schedule my day.
| hirvi74 wrote:
| > but I'd guess that most of them like their jobs and like
| the structure and accountability that is provided to them,
| and not having to figure out every detail themself.
|
| It's also nice not having to worry about when/if your next
| paycheck will come in, if you can afford your health
| insurance, get company matches on 401ks, etc.. Freedom is
| free, after all. While security may be an illusion to some
| degree, it's a compromise for freedom that many are willing
| to make (myself included).
|
| I sometimes get urges to go out and sow some wild oats, but I
| debate if it's worth all the effort in the end.
| jvalencia wrote:
| IMO, I think that pursuing a standard of living for you and
| your family is a reasonable and honorable goal, even if that
| means work is a chore. If you can love what you do that's a
| perk, but even if it's not there, the goal still remains.
|
| Having disposable income means you can pursue leisure
| opportunity, give charitably, gain security for your loved
| ones, etc. You don't have to love your job to accomplish your
| goals.
| lijogdfljk wrote:
| Agreed. It's why i get frustrated in a lot of the antiwork
| movements. The core of the antiwork movement is about respect
| and healthy treatment of course; but as a community they also
| fraternize (?) with people who think we shouldn't have to work
| at all; that it's optional and society is just asleep to this
| simple and obvious "fact". But of course it's bunk.
|
| Until automation "saves humanity"[1] we have to work. We can
| and should push for healthy balances, respectful treatment of
| workers, sane retirement ages, etc. But still, work needs to be
| done, and i find it incredibly frustrating that some people
| think we can all just stop working.
|
| [1]: Though i'm quite pessimistic that automation will save
| humanity. I suspect that while it could, it will also cause
| such turmoil in the beginning that we fail as a species. A
| nuclear winter of the working class.
| kgwgk wrote:
| Automation saved humanity from spending a large chunk of
| their lifetimes sowing and reaping. Humanity found other
| works to do.
| brightball wrote:
| I have the same frustration when people conflate libertarian
| with anarchist.
| wollsmoth wrote:
| Yeah the antiwork reddit in particular is kind of..
| uncomfortable to read sometimes. I want it to be more about
| giving workers more of the benefit of their labor but they
| seem to be just anti doing anything at times.
| hirvi74 wrote:
| r/WorkReform is slightly better about this, but sometimes
| is plagued with the same issues.
| juve1996 wrote:
| For work to matter it has to help people achieve goals. If
| their goals are unachievable then they will not see a point
| in work. This is where we are.
| brailsafe wrote:
| Well... if work was optional, but sufficiently and
| progressively rewarding, then people would choose to do the
| jobs that they're currently not choosing to do.
|
| So many jobs not only pay like shit while extracting so much
| value from that labour, but in most cases you also have no
| incentive to give even the slightest shit about it. No
| ability to buy into the company, no autonomy, very little
| functional leverage over increasing your fixed salary, and in
| most cases not even remotely knowing how much the conpany is
| making.
|
| My current company thought it was wierd that I basically just
| peaced out for a bit when they ran out of money to pay me and
| at the same time aren't the slightest bit transparent about
| details regarding potential acquisition. Likewise I learned
| early on that if you don't literally have either a seat at
| some table, or a real stake in the company, or any decision
| power, you might as well stop trying after your work is done
| with an acceptable level of quality. It ain't worth it.
|
| Lots of companies rn complaining about worker shortages, but
| they offer crap pay and it's fixed. You either don't get a
| commission, or you get maybe a gift card as a bonus from time
| to time. Most don't offer benefits.
| bluGill wrote:
| Some jobs, would you clean latrines if that was somehow the
| only job we couldn't figure out how to automate,
| Retric wrote:
| We already have self cleaning public toilets. Generally
| jobs that suck are the easiest types of jobs to automate
| because novelty is interesting.
| WalterBright wrote:
| > you might as well stop trying after your work is done
| with an acceptable level of quality. It ain't worth it.
|
| It's been worth it for me.
| grecy wrote:
| > _people who think we shouldn 't have to work at all; that
| it's optional and society is just asleep to this simple and
| obvious "fact"._
|
| The evidence is clear if there were not people making $8.56
| million dollars per hour, there would be plenty enough money
| to give everyone enough to do what they want with their
| lives.
|
| Yes plenty of BS jobs would vanish, and you'd have to pay
| people more to do "undesirable jobs" like taking the trash,
| but in developed countries like Australia we already do. I
| made $120k/year stacking boxes in a factory because it's
| mindless work that nobody wants to do. Instead they sit at
| home at get $1280 each month from the government as welfare.
| And that's fine.
| ModernMech wrote:
| At the same time, a lot of us who are "working" are actually
| doing bullshit nonsense that is created just to keep us busy.
| Meanwhile a lot of people who do _actual_ work like raising
| children, taking care of elder parents, or educating
| themselves are not considered to be "working" because they're
| not generating someone else a profit.
|
| What would happen if all the bullshit work ended tomorrow?
| Would the world come to an end? I don't think so. But if all
| the unpaid work out there went undone, yes, society would
| quickly fall apart.
|
| I don't follow the "anti work" movement so I won't pretend to
| know what they as a group believe. But for me, I believe we
| can drastically redefine the concept of work and come out
| ahead.
| foobiekr wrote:
| >What would happen if all the bullshit work ended
| tomorrow?<
|
| It can't. Some of the bullshit work is actually just to
| provide a bizarro-world downtime where you can't just tell
| people to take extra vacation because that is unthinkable:
| "fairness" complaints, worries that idle time makes people
| more likely to consider their options, and frankly the
| inconceivability of the idea in and of itself. So what you
| do is have this kind of idle time work that doesn't
| actually need to be done but keeps people busy. Think of it
| as the workplace version of engagement tweaking.
|
| As a concrete example, in the ASIC space, the sub-teams
| involved routinely finish their part of the current
| generation, and in some cases the next generation work
| isn't ready to start yet. One thing startups used to do
| (and were still doing in my direct observation as recently
| as 4 years ago) was lay off their ASIC guys as they
| finished the current generation until they could see
| whether the chip was getting traction, and then they'd
| hurry up and hire for the next generation of so.
|
| And so on.
|
| What the companies eventually started doing by ~2000 was
| creating bullshit background work projects that were
| clearly, at least to most observers, either senseless (like
| bumping the generation for a low-volume ASIC where even
| just the mask costs would never be paid back if the project
| shipped) or speculative-but-not-productive projects.
| cortesoft wrote:
| > At the same time, a lot of us who are "working" are
| actually doing bullshit nonsense that is created just to
| keep us busy.
|
| I am not going to argue that some work is more essential
| than other work, but I disagree that some jobs are created
| just to keep people busy. Why would anyone hire someone
| just to make sure they stayed busy? That is simply not
| happening. The people who control the money aren't worried
| about keeping people busy, they are worried about making
| more money.
|
| Now, is there a large part of our economy that only exists
| because people who have capital will pursue anything in
| order to grow their capital? Yes, absolutely, but those
| jobs still exist because someone else will give them money
| to obtain what the job produces. Companies aren't sitting
| around thinking, "oh man, too many people in the world
| aren't busy... let's create some more useless jobs"
| [deleted]
| ModernMech wrote:
| > Why would anyone hire someone just to make sure they
| stayed busy? That is simply not happening.
|
| I'll give you an example. My wife worked as an intensive
| case manager, where the job was ostensibly to help
| severely ill people manage their lives. Was that her
| actual job though? No, her actual job was filling out
| reams of paper work instead of actually helping anyone.
| That paperwork was sent to the state and the company got
| paid, with the vast majority of the money going to
| executives.
|
| What would happen if her job were eliminated? Would the
| people be worse off? No, the whole point was to _not_
| help them and keep the state aid checks coming in. My
| wife wasn't using her skills and was depressed and
| stressed all the time so she'd be better off if that job
| had never existed. Then there were the 3 layers of middle
| management coordinating all of the form filling. Their
| job was wholly redundant, and they didn't do any
| meaningful work at all. Did they even need to exist? It's
| not clear, but their existence didn't work toward
| actually helping any real people. They just helped
| collect government checks. They were paid well though.
|
| The people who would be harmed the most by that "work"
| not getting done are the executives.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| Ha! I have family members who were the bureaucrats who
| audited that paperwork your wife sent in. The situation
| is exactly the same on the government side. Over
| qualified people doing meaningless paperwork while
| politically connected upper managers make tons of money
| joining conference calls from the golf course. It's great
| at crushing the spirit of anybody who actually wants to
| accomplish whatever the organization's mission is.
|
| And when the service being provided are also paid for by
| the government the taxpayers take it on both ends!
|
| Edit: Is my comment unpopular because some people think
| I'm endorsing the status quo or because some people find
| this state of affairs inconvenient to their world view?
| ModernMech wrote:
| Lol yeah. The main job of those middle managers seemed to
| be reviewing reports so they didn't make it sound like
| they were driving people anywhere, even though that was
| half the job. The state side bureaucrats probably did the
| same thing! So it's even worse than a useless job, but a
| useless job done twice!
| cortesoft wrote:
| Ok, I see where the disconnect is. You are talking about
| work that has no value for 'real people', or humanity in
| general. They aren't providing a good or service that
| anyone wants directly.
|
| However, they are clearly providing value to SOMEONE. The
| person paying your wife gets more value (money) than they
| pay your wife to do the job. They aren't trying to keep
| her busy, they are trying to make money.
|
| You could call this rent seeking, which is a completely
| fair criticism. It just isn't the same as 'make work'
| that is simply trying to keep someone busy. They are
| trying to extract value in a way that is not good for
| society as a whole.
| AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote:
| I would say it is precisely exactly the same in the vast
| majority of cases. These jobs exist to help some rich
| fucks extract even more value from society in a way that
| benefits them personally at the expense of society. They
| are worse than useless, they are actively making the
| world worse.
| cortesoft wrote:
| That isn't the same as "employing someone just to keep
| them busy", though. They are employing them to make more
| money; it just so happens that the work they are doing
| doesn't actually provide value to society.
|
| It might seem like a minor distinction, but I think it
| matters when trying to understand the motivations
| involved.
| ModernMech wrote:
| Right, I would define something like getting an education
| to be work, because it's done with the intention of
| bettering one's self to better society; while going
| around and breaking all the windows in town just to be
| paid to fix them again is not work, even if some
| individual ends up getting rich in the process. It's a
| net loss for the rest of us.
|
| I guess from a physics pov it all depends how you define
| the boundary of the system, and I draw it at a society
| level.
| mindslight wrote:
| > _sitting around thinking, "oh man, too many people in
| the world aren't busy... let's create some more useless
| jobs"_
|
| This is exactly what the Federal Reserve does with its
| mandate for "full employment". When there aren't "enough"
| jobs, it loans out of a bunch of new money at low
| interest rates, for bankers to spend on outlandish bets -
| like say polluting the environment with electric scooters
| and hoping they'll turn into a recurring revenue stream.
|
| "Full time employment" in 1950 was 40 hours per
| household. The definition was never adjusted when women
| entered the workforce en masse, so it's now 80+. With
| technological advancement, "full time work" should mean
| an individual works around 15 hours per week (with that
| "exempt" loophole closed). Economically, workers should
| have accumulated surplus and then demanded lower working
| hours regardless, but the previously described economic
| feedback loop saw that didn't happen, and instead the
| gains got siphoned upwards as housing and other economic
| rent.
|
| That's the macro. At the micro level there are certainly
| motivations to create useless jobs. For one, the more
| people you manage/employ the more powerful you are, even
| if they're spinning idle. Also, adversarial entities can
| create jobs beneficial to their own self-interest while
| the overall situation remains nonproductive or even
| antiproductive (eg healthcare billing).
| Ekaros wrote:
| I would accept reasoning that on some level specially the
| large organizations are dysfunctional. And they don't
| necessarily optimize for costs on all levels. Sometimes
| it is just higher-ups wanting more resources and people
| under them. Even if it is not productive or needed... And
| what of the stuff people doing end up being productive?
|
| And then sometimes I really question is that new version
| website really needed?
| ForHackernews wrote:
| There are books about this![0]
|
| > Why would anyone hire someone just to make sure they
| stayed busy?
|
| 1) flunkies, who serve to make their superiors feel
| important, e.g., receptionists, administrative
| assistants, door attendants, store greeters, makers of
| websites whose sites neglect ease of use and speed for
| looks;
|
| 2) goons, who act to harm or deceive others on behalf of
| their employer, e.g., lobbyists, corporate lawyers,
| telemarketers, public relations specialists, community
| managers;
|
| 3) duct tapers, who temporarily fix problems that could
| be fixed permanently, e.g., programmers repairing bloated
| code, airline desk staff who calm passengers whose bags
| do not arrive;
|
| 4) box tickers, who create the appearance that something
| useful is being done when it is not, e.g., survey
| administrators, in-house magazine journalists, corporate
| compliance officers, quality service managers;
|
| 5) taskmasters, who create extra work for those who do
| not need it, e.g., middle management, leadership
| professionals
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_Jobs
| corrral wrote:
| Companies are, internally, command economies. Of course
| they're full of inefficiency and crazy shit like people
| hired to do nothing. Competition curbs it somewhat, but
| economies of scale and various moats and probably some
| under-the-table collusion and such are _very_ effective
| at protecting them from what we might consider
| _desirable_ market effects.
| foobiekr wrote:
| >Why would anyone hire someone just to make sure they
| stayed busy<
|
| This happens _constantly_. It is a side effect of how the
| promotion ladder in the management profession typically
| works at large companies: your likelihood of being
| promoted to the next grade depends entirely on a small
| number of metrics one of which is how many people you
| manage.
|
| I actually have been documenting a very strong example of
| this for a book I have been thinking about writing about
| what destroyed a high flyer after the dotcom. After the
| collapse of the dotcom, one group, which had the CEO's
| ear as "the project that will save us" had effectively
| unlimited headcount even while the rest of the company
| was in cuts-and-freeze mode for 2+ years, and because of
| the headcount = promotion issue, they hired armies of
| people that they were barely even interviewing. The
| project ended up 2-4 years late depending on whether you
| count the first release as a viable product (it wasn't).
|
| I have seen this behavior in every single large company I
| have worked for. I'm not going to give more details
| because it would ID me, but this is very common and I was
| in a position to witness it with actual data, not just a
| leaf node engineer telling myself stories about why XXX
| got a promotion to VP or whatever.
| ForHackernews wrote:
| This is accurate. As an engineering manager, one of the
| primary criteria I'm judged on when interviewing for new
| roles is the size of the teams I've managed previously.
| Bigger = better.
| WalterBright wrote:
| This is why over time large companies tend to slide and
| then fail. Instead of growing and growing until they take
| over the world.
| UncleOxidant wrote:
| I think you're both right to a degree. Yes, nobody's
| specifically hiring people just to keep them busy. But
| there are many instances where people are employed to
| make some manager (and it could be management at any
| level) look good, or retain power within the organization
| or even just for them to retain a management position
| within the organization long past the time when their
| position could've been eliminated. This is more likely in
| larger organizations, but can also happen in mid-size
| ones as well.
| tablespoon wrote:
| > What would happen if all the bullshit work ended
| tomorrow? Would the world come to an end?
|
| Honestly, it might. It would take an extraordinary amount
| of work to correctly identify all the work that's
| _actually_ bullshit, and there might not be any time left
| for anything else.
|
| There's work that's bullshit, but no-one realizes it
| because it's very hard to have an expansive yet detailed
| view of everything. There's also work that seems like
| bullshit, but performs an important, non-obvious function
| [1].
|
| [1] Sort of like Congressional earmarks: they were attacked
| for a long time as corrupt waste. Now that they're gone, it
| seems like they might have actually been grease that helped
| keep polarization in check.
| aleksiy123 wrote:
| Like with any process there is some waste (bullshit jobs),
| but the question is, it worth committing the extra
| resources to eliminate these bullshit jobs or would those
| resources be better used elsewhere.
|
| Essentially not all waste is actually worth eliminating.
| psyc wrote:
| The number of people in this subthread who think true
| bullshit jobs don't exist because they're inefficient
| astonishes me. You'd have to believe that all middle
| managers were good at allocating effort.
|
| Or senior executives for that matter.
|
| In big companies, cash cows subsidize all manner of
| boondoggles. That's why we have a term for cash cows.
|
| Ever have a long term project cancelled, either for a good
| reason, or just because a new VP showed up and the project
| didn't have his brand on it? Did that cancelled project
| make the company money? Companies only do things that make
| money, right?
|
| Never saw a high level goal in your company that was
| misguided? A roadmap for getting there that was misguided?
| Never seen a process (methodology, etc) that wasted a lot
| of time, but one important person swore by? I could go on.
| powerhour wrote:
| This is why I roll my eyes when I see people suggest that
| government is wasteful and should be run like a business.
| It's like they have never worked a job in their lives.
| wollsmoth wrote:
| what kind of bullshit work do you mean exactly? Who is
| wasting their money paying people to do "bullshit work"
| that doesn't actually need to happen?
| corrral wrote:
| Tons and tons of organizations. It's extremely common.
|
| It makes more sense when you consider that companies
| mostly don't experience market effects internally, but
| operate much more like the Soviet Union, and that,
| especially for very large companies, the effects of
| external competition are rather _less than ideally
| efficient_ , to put it mildly. Throw in a heaping
| spoonful of principal-agent problems up and down every
| organization, the fact that information is very far from
| perfectly available and distributed to managers, and more
| than a little good ol' incompetence, and it'd be weird if
| it _wasn 't_ common.
| flippinburgers wrote:
| I am fairly confident that many (most) pilots love their job.
| The others that you listed are probably valid.
| treis wrote:
| Judging by their reputation as alcoholics I'd disagree.
| Actually seems like a quite terrible job. Doing the same
| thing every day over and over. And after the novelty of
| flight wears off probably quite boring. I know being a
| passenger is and outside of take off/landing I'm not sure
| there's much difference.
| Ekaros wrote:
| Some might be stuck there, but I still agree that it is
| largely a passion career unlike many others. Not that there
| is levels where compensation isn't horrific, but even those
| are working towards career growth.
| spoonjim wrote:
| Just because something's not attainable for everyone doesn't
| mean you shouldn't aspire to it yourself. Sure, lots of people
| will have to do stuff they don't want to, so what? It's like
| aspiring to be the best basketball player of all time. Not only
| is it unattainable for more than one person, but to achieve it
| you have to destroy everyone else's ambitions to do the same.
| cdkmoose wrote:
| To extend the analogy, OP is saying I want some team to pay
| me to play basketball, but I will only play on the days I
| feel like it, independent of the team's schedule. That
| generally doesn't hold up well. If you want someone to give
| you money you need to conform to their desires enough to get
| the money, and that won't be what you want all the time.
| cortesoft wrote:
| I don't think it is bad to try to make money doing what you
| want, but I do think it is unhealthy and antisocial to define
| success in life as only doing what you want at all times.
|
| To compare it to your basketball analogy, it is fine to
| pursue becoming the best basketball player of all time, but
| if you think you have failed if you don't achieve it is not
| good.
| ericmcer wrote:
| This assumes everyone has some higher ambition that they are
| unable to pursue due to bills. A lot of people grew up in
| shitty situations so job security and the ability to provide
| stability for their family gives life enough meaning.
| Expectations are definitely relative.
| colpabar wrote:
| I think the point is that if you asked someone with a job
| such as a janitor or an airline luggage worker if they'd
| rather get paid to do something that they enjoy doing, the
| answer would be yes 100% of the time. To go even further, the
| answer would be yes for everyone with a job except for that
| small lucky few who actually enjoy what they do.
|
| And of course, this is not realistic, because some people
| would want to get paid for things that no one would be
| willing to pay for.
| asah wrote:
| disagree: I've known lots of workers who are actually quite
| content.
|
| Obviously, everybody wants more money/benefits/etc,
| respect, pleasant work conditions, etc. But the workers I
| know have ABSOLUTELY NO INTEREST in jobs like research
| scientist, politician, stockbroker, lawyer, doctor,
| programmer, etc because they involve all sorts of skills &
| tasks they fear, despise or seem wildly unobtainable. Many
| people are introverted and fear meeting strangers and
| public speaking. Many people are enjoy the physical world
| and "it makes my head hurt" to spend hours thinking about
| abstract stuff, which a lot of these "desk jobs" involve.
|
| I highly recommend the book: How to Tell When You're Tired
|
| source: 30 years working all sorts of jobs, from warehouse
| and retail jobs to executive and board roles.
| hirvi74 wrote:
| > source: 30 years working all sorts of jobs, from
| warehouse and retail jobs to executive and board roles.
|
| Do you mind answering a few questions? I am kind of in a
| "should I stay or should I go?" dilemma with my current
| employment, and I have no idea what I want to do (I know
| more about what I do NOT want to do).
|
| You've been working almost longer than I have been alive,
| and I am curious what you think (and others).
|
| 1. What job made you the happiest, and Why?
|
| 2. Did you happen to find any positive or negative
| correlation between life satisfaction/happiness and the
| amount of money you made?
|
| I'm just your average, run of the mill developer. Nothing
| special about me, and that's okay. It's just a job for
| me, and I enjoy the work. I have no desire to be some Big
| N programmer. I could chase dollar signs considering what
| is out there for us devs, but I am not sure the juice is
| worth the squeeze when I am already living comfortably.
| ericmcer wrote:
| If you asked them what they would rather be doing I doubt
| many would reply with painter, writer, musician, or other
| career worthy passions. Obviously if someone's passion is
| eating pizza or watching TV or spending time with their
| kids it would be unrealistic that they turn that into a
| career. I have many friends who work blue collar jobs and
| most of them aspire to do the same work but get paid more,
| work less or work for themselves.
| cortesoft wrote:
| I think everyone has a 'higher' ambition in the sense of
| "this is what I like to do". Even people in shitty situations
| have things they would rather be doing than working their
| job.
|
| I agree that only people born with privilege think that
| supporting yourself while only doing what you want is a
| viable option, but that is kinda my point.
| mrits wrote:
| Not everyone likes doing things. It's one of the reason
| depression is so common in people with a lot of free time.
| hirvi74 wrote:
| "Idle hands are the Devil's workshop" as the saying goes.
| [deleted]
| ge96 wrote:
| Easier said than done but save and retire then free to do what
| you want.
| Animats wrote:
| And then he turned to the dark side: _" The obvious opportunity
| at the time was to sell SEO services."_
| NikolaNovak wrote:
| Basically, what is the equilibrium?
|
| There are many social equilibriums, and not all are equally
| desirable for all; but Everybody writing from their backpacks
| while traveling is not one of the equilibria states (which does
| not necessarily mean it's not a suitable goal for an
| individual, as long as expectations are tempered:)
| [deleted]
| Damogran6 wrote:
| Hopefully it just didn't make it far enough into the
| conversation, but your minimum income to survive should have
| $100-$300 a month in long term savings, so you're not forced to
| grind in your 70's.
|
| Can you make that Million dollar Idea and be independently
| wealthy for the rest of your life? Maybe, but hedge your bets.
| jll29 wrote:
| > My ideal work life is to write about whatever I want, however I
| want, and be able to turn that into a comfortable living.
|
| It might be possible to find such a lifestyle; in fact, it is
| much easier than the other goal of the poster, namely to write
| something truly great. In fact, writing something truly great and
| writing to get a comfortable living may be contrarian goals.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-07-20 23:01 UTC)