The tagline on the author's twitter feed for this article is "What is the point of having a job?" Answer: "Money can be used as a medium of exchange for goods and services. Here is a list of 24 things you can do with Money; #11 WILL BLOW YOUR MIND." I now qualify to write at Vice.
They wanted a story covered in Portland and asked a friend here if they knew anyone. My friend was friends with their friend and had been freelancing for one of the weeklies and has a blog with some of her writing. Her stuff is snarky and funny, they liked it and asked her to cover an event. They liked what she did and now she has an invite to pitch or submit work. I think she has had four things on there in the past 6 months. They turned down one piece so far. It's just freelance work but she is their go to for Portland.
Money is overrated. You can buy what kind of stuff? Let say a car. A car you use mostly to drive to your job. Or let say a house, an overpriced house because you need to be close to your job. Or cloth, attire to wear at your job, and at some fun events like concerts, theater, beer nights, movies, you go to, to numb the pain from your job... Yeah money is kind of cool.
Money buys you time. Owning a car, at least in the US is more expensive than public transit, at the cost of cutting commute times in half. And where I live, there is no functional public transit to take part in. A home in an area that has a low crime rate, clean streets, good neighbors and a clean(er) environment saves you the time needed to deal with the adverse impacts of crime and poor health that come with the stress of a poor living environment. Can't afford to live anywhere but the old dump site? Sucks to be you as you deal with the asthma and health impacts that rob you of your time on this earth. Money buys clothing, especially good quality shoes and socks, that keeps you clean, dry and healthy letting you live longer and not have to fight the debilitating impacts of bad weather (rain,sleet snow, cold, ice, excessive sun for examples) All of which cost money. At a $30K yearly salary the typical concert costs three hours of work. A movie in a theater one hour. Netflix+internet? On average four hours a month. Money is not a be-all-that-ends-all. Money is a tool. Like all tools available to us, when you use it wisely, you can live a better, longer, life. Saying "Money is overrated" is a misdirection at best.and at some fun events like concerts, theater, beer nights, movies, you go to, to numb the pain from your job...
My point was that most of your money is used just to allow you to... work. No transit if you have no work, nor a need for a flat in clean street, or to "buy time" .. Without work that's exactly what you reclaim: time. Without work you just need a cabin in the wood under the tropical sun, a bicycle and cheaps hoes. But you need your netflix, 3G, clean street, low emission car, nice flat because... you work. Good for you.
Henry Petroski argues that necessity isn't the mother of invention; luxury is. Nobody is going to sit around inventing a fork when they're hungry. They're going to invent a fork in their off-time while sulking about the gravy stains on their cloak from that mutton slipping off their knife. Luxury is also the prime motivator in work, not money. There's a reason even the homeless need money, and why they "go to work" sitting on a street corner to collect it, rather than relaxing at the library reading Milton. While it is possible through vanishingly specific methods to subsist off the grid with no financial interaction with the rest of the world, the fact of the matter is there aren't a lot of hunter-gatherers left in the world because it sucks. I give you a "cabin in the wood" somewhere temperate. Let's say you've got 5 acres planted and you know how to fish. You're going to spend a lot of your time (your given time, because I've just handed you one hell of a leg up over everyone else) subsisting - tending your crops, catching your fish - but not every waking hour. Even presuming you have two spare hours a day, what are you going to do with it? Watch leaves fall? Scratch cave drawings out of charcoal? The minute you decide you'd rather read Harry Potter, you're going to find yourself needing excess cash. And what are you going to do for it? Maybe sell some fish? Congratulations, you have a job, fisherman.
Your only argument for innovation as a luxury byproduct is a negative one: Foraging for food in a cold cave wont let you invent forks. Living a decent life without meaningless job, might make the society more innovative. May be the innovators in a society less driven by consumption might try to build meaningful invention, not sporks, or a bigger iPhone. But that's just wishful speculation on my part. I like when you say Luxury is what you work for. I just tried to refute Francopoli's ironic comment about working for money. Because working, in the end, cost you most of the money you get. But, if it is luxury you crave, I have to admit working is probably your only legal path. Investing still has a greater profitability.
Because working, in the end, cost you most of the money you get.
i'm not sure what kind of work you do, but this certainly is not the case for me. The only cost I can think of that is tied to my employment is my clothing. I wouldn't have as many sports coats or dress shirts/pants if I didn't have a job. -that's it. That costs me maybe, .05% of what my job provides me.
The only argument I made for innovation as a luxury byproduct, you mean. I did link you to a book, after all. "Living a decent life without meaningless job" is what most of us do, by the way. There's this value judgement in the entire discussion - if all jobs are meaningless, and we all work jobs, then we're all too stupid to determine that our jobs are meaningless. Which, considering we all spend the majority of our waking hours there, implies a stunning lack of self-awareness. So on one side, we have experience and daily living. On your side, "wishful speculation." Still, you admit "if it is luxury you crave... working is probably your only legal path." Worthy of note: luxury, for the purpose of this discussion, has been set at "flatware." And not even a full set - the evolution of the fork derived from the knife, which is most assuredly not something you're going to forage for, even if you're a practiced flint knapper. Yet you still throw out this canard about investing. Investing what? Nuts into trees? Or money? Money which comes from an exchange of goods and services, also known as a job? It's kind of amazing how you can embrace the philosophies of the subsistence preppers and the 1% simultaneously while casting aspersions on all the people in a middle that have somehow figured out a way to enjoy working for a living.
I don't see any irony in francopoli's comments. He describes money as a tool to exchange work for other things. He doesn't say anyone is working for money.I just tried to refute Francopoli's ironic comment about working for money.
Maybe I am reading too much into this. The core human drives in this life are for a safe, clean place to live and a belly full of food. A secondary would be for social interactions (family, community etc). Every society uses the tools available to make these things happen; they are one of the driving forces that pushed us from hunter gather societies to agricultural villages. In the old days the tools used were muscle, both human and animal, and the rough resources of the land. We also had an average live expectancy of 40, half our kids died of smallpox and measles and most of us starved at least for a part of the year. Now, we write checks from the money we earn and learn how to do the other things via the collective social intelligence of society. Everyone works unless you have a trust fund or lottery winnings, and even those resources were created by work. Are you trying to make a point here that I am not understanding?But you need your netflix, 3G, clean street, low emission car, nice flat because... you work. Good for you.
How much money do you have in the bank? If you stop working now, how many years could you live with that money, in a decent cheap house (in a cheap part of your country, not even in a cheap foreign country) Remember you do not have to work: so no transit, no representation shopping, plenty of time, so you can enjoy repairing broken furniture instead of replacing it, you can enjoy cooking instead of going out, etc.. You can fish, but will more likely buy fish... fish are cheap. How many years? Those years measure the part of your income that go into paying for the obligatory expense your working lifestyle impose upon you.And that's my only argument: money you get from work is overrated, it is mostly useful because you work. There must be a case for a sustainable innovative world where we work 15-10-5h/week. But obviously we will be too bored to indulge in it.
Adding: Your link implies that self-sufficiency can be accomplished in 2 acres of selective, intensive agriculture, which is a number I've seen a few places. If you delve deeper into it, you'll see that the hour estimates for that sort of lifestyle hover around 10-16 hrs/week for half the year, and 2 or less for the rest of it. This is a great book - it was reprinted in 1973, first published in 1929 or so. It still implies mechanized agriculture; you can subsist on 5 acres if you have a tractor, a truck to get your produce to market, and a house pre-built. There's this real Chris McCandless vibe to a lot of young mens' concepts of self-sufficiency without really grasping that Chris McCandless starved to death 5 months into his odyssey even with someone else's hunting shack to live in. A more reasonable and sustainable approach can be found in Shannon Hayes' Radical Homemakers, which solves the investment capital quandary with "freeload off your friends and relatives until you don't have to anymore." Which gets to the crux of the issue - money exists so that people without nepotism can function. If you have nepotism, you don't need money. Even then, subsistence farming is a job just like any other. Its hallmarks include difficult manual labor, long hours and outsized risk exposure due to weather, market forces, blight, etc. I love me some Mother Earth News as much as the next guy (had a letter published, in fact!) but even the most die-hard preppers will point out that self-reliance is hella hard work. There's a reason jobs specialized. I'd much rather make hundreds of dollars a day pushing faders than averaging less than a hundred dollars a day milking cows. As a result, I arranged my education and experience to further that goal. That doesn't make me deviant, that makes me normal.
This assumes you know how to raise food, which is much more involved than throwing seeds into dirt. That is the one I was thinking. There is a romantic version of going back to nature, living off the land etc. There is a reason it is a romantic fantasy; go talk to a old farmer for a few hours and that fantasy comes crashing down. I have the added benefit that I have friends living on farms so I get to see how the sausage is made and have no desire to do that on my own. Bingo. I make ~100 per billable hour; doing a lot of things would be a good learning experience but there is an opportunity cost that needs to be added to the equation. The concept of an opportunity cost is one of the things I have trouble explaining to people.Your link implies that self-sufficiency can be accomplished in 2 acres of selective, intensive agriculture, which is a number I've seen a few places.
There's this real Chris McCandless vibe to a lot of young mens' concepts of self-sufficiency without really grasping that Chris McCandless starved to death 5 months into his odyssey even with someone else's hunting shack to live in.
There's a reason jobs specialized. I'd much rather make hundreds of dollars a day pushing faders than averaging less than a hundred dollars a day milking cows. As a result, I arranged my education and experience to further that goal. That doesn't make me deviant, that makes me normal.
I think it's fair to say that younger people are less motivated by money than their parents were, but I also think it's fair to say that younger people have access to a lot less of it and thus, have settled on rewards and social signals that are easier to come by. David Graeber made the point in Debt: The First 5,000 years that money is the means of exchange created for trade between people who didn't trust each other, and that its first applications were slavery and blood debt. That said, you can probably count on one hand the number of people you trust but you can exchange goods and services with nearly anyone on the planet so it's not like the stuff doesn't have its uses. Money isn't so much a thing as it is a measurement, like speed or weight. Dimensions can't be good or bad, they can only be relative. You'll be interested to know that money is only a motivator up to a point, or at least that's what all the en vogue social science says. Beyond about $72k a year or the equivalent it just becomes a high score to compare yourself to your friends.
My money just bought me a new guitar. Some tasty food. I work from home and could live anywhere in the state I'm in and I like my house. -money bought it. It's comfortable and warm -cuz of the heat, which I bought with money.
With time you can build a guitar. Yeah you have to buy wood and tools. But it's kind of neat to build your own guitar. Money cant buy the feeling of playing on the guitar you build. Woods and tools are kind of expensive. But hey, with them you can repair stuff instead of going to Ikea. Your house is probably overpriced. Sell it and get a cheap one in a warmer state. And with the extra money buy tools and wood. I'm waiting here for the pic of the first guitar you handcrafted yourself. Or you like the feeling of buying stuff better. And that's neat too. Few thing compares to the feel-good rush of buying something new and shinny. We've been taught by ads to feel that way.
1. What tools should I buy to build the humbuckers? 2. My house has risen, significantly, in value since I purchased it. That said, I bought it to live in, not sell for a profit. 3. I live in NC. It's a pretty warm place. 4. I like the feeling of buying well crafted goods that are more durable than that which I could Make. -no ikea. I'm not a carpenter and I don't want to be a carpenter. It would take lots of time to get good at building custom Les Paul's. I'd rather use that time to get better at building songs with it. Time -the greatest thing my money buys.
Or work for two hours and use that money to pay for the skills and expertise that other people have perfected over a lifetime. You get a better product and instead of spending 30-40 hours building the guitar you can use those hours learning to play it.With time you can build a guitar. Yeah you have to buy wood and tools.
Oh look a shitty "article" from vice.com. No studies or data to back up anything said. Then you chose the wrong line of work. Go join the Peace Corps or VoA and get some perspective. If the article focused here, this would be a great conversation starter. Your boss is not your friend. You can 'like' your boss, and if you get lucky like I have, your boss is there to keep you on task, focused, goal oriented and run interference with the people up the chain of command. Never friend your boss on social media, and I take that a step further and don't allow coworkers to know what I do online if possible. Work is what you do to pay the bills that need to be taken care of so that you can live. The vast majority of us are working jobs that we would rather not do. That is the nature of the world we live in. Back in the dark ages of the 50's and 60's (and in small pockets today) the company and its employees shared a social contract. I gave you my labour, you paid me and did not treat me like shit. You invested in me so that I can increase my productivity earning you the business owner more money, and I got raises as a motivator. Because it is far, FAR cheaper for a business to keep an employee than to hire new ones, this worked for all involved. Now, do people dream of working in factories, cube farms, retail? No. But, picking a good career/job path leads to the ability to earn enough to live and pursue the tasks you enjoy after hours. People in the 1800's were having these discussions. Hell, they talk about people hating their jobs in the flipping BIBLE of all places. Work is what makes you the money to pay for the things you really want to do. Follow your talents and use them to fund the life you want to live. This Listicle is a better clickbait than this Vice blog entry with an author who does not even have a wiki entry or Amazon Author Page.I've had zero hour contracts, I've been freelance, and I've had a salary. None of these things have satisfied me.
The modern manager "wants to be your friend, and they're actually nice people. It's the worst thing that you can come across. If my manager thinks I'm their friend and I can joke with them, they have created a bond with me that's inescapable. If I want to refuse an order, they will see it as a personal insult, like a friend being jilted. They can rightly say, 'mate, friends don't treat each other like that.'"
Hubski has had this discussion several times. Edit: and here's another previous one. Also, I'd wager that a large majority of Hubski users work jobs that actually do "matter", both to themselves and society at large. But I don't disagree with the general premise that we've got a lot of people working meaningless jobs to sustain other people working meaningless jobs.
I started a reply on this subject yesterday but didn't post it because it became a rant. What is left out of the "bullshit jobs" equation is that every dollar paid to an employee (in the private sector) must be freely given by a customer. The employee may not see the value, but someone must. This doesn't mean that every act by every worker generates revenue, far from it. But an employer cannot remain an employer long without customers that continue giving them money.I'd wager that a large majority of Hubski users work jobs that actually do "matter", both to themselves and society at large.
That would be fucked because then you'd have more energy to invest in producing whatever it is you'd like! How shitty would that be? My only problem is that not everyone is a flagamuffin or wasoxygen or basically anyone else it is reading this circa the date it was posted. Edit: Hubski is great. And I have much more faith in it than humanity as a whole. "Sorry", if anyone feels like I owe them a sothiopathic apology.
Judging from the title I thought this was going to be about the automation of the workplace, and how if all of our jobs could be done by robots then it brings into question why we attach our job so close to our identity. It was not about that, but an interesting read nonetheless. I'm curious what type of work this article is calling into question, is it all work? I feel like some people like their jobs not because they feel tied to the company, but because they actually do something they love. His categorizing of engagement seemed a bit narrow I guess.
Well, you've got results from an American Gallup poll whose methodology and terminology is opaque, whose definition are interpreted and elaborated by a British professor from City College London, who then provides a single-point unfounded anecdote that becomes the basis for two paragraphs by the author. Really, this is the way Vice writes a book review. A book that's been out since June. And has four reviews on Amazon. By an author who has eight books, and seven Amazon reviews. There is more commentary on this page than there is commentary on the author's books.
Looking at this article and the comments made already, maybe I should try to write an article for Vice. I mean the Vice is a name after all. Maybe some of us should try to pitch articles for the Vice and see if they get in.