An intractable question?

[lisefrac]

A lot of my friends have been linking to this Onion article: Find The Thing You're Most Passionate About, Then Do It On Nights And Weekends For The Rest Of Your LifeThis is... relevant to mah interests

Comments

[skyknyt]

Well, I have a feeling that if there was more wealth allocated to the bottom 90% of society, they'd be able to spend it on a wider variety of entertainments, which in turn would let more folks that want to create those entertainments flourish.

[mirrored_echo]

...it's interesting that there seem to be a lot of parallels between trying to balance a 9-5 job with a creative passion and trying to balance a 9-5 job with taking care of children.

I think the solution is that companies need to expect that some people, including highly qualified people, will want to work 20 to 30 hours, and are willing to accept less pay, in order to have room for something else they really value in their life.

[neuromancerzss]

I think the country as a whole needs to be starting on the path of drawing down the workforce. We're not the same workforce we were 50 years ago. We're drastically more efficient and getting more automated every year. There isn't really a reason to believe that 40 hour work weeks are necessary for a functioning economy, and as our efficiency and automation increase even further there just isn't going to be enough work to even keep people busy, so we have a choice of a gigantic increase in unemployment or a more managed reduction in work hours.

[ketsugami]

This is a prisoner's dilemma/tragedy of the commons/arms race problem. As long as SOME people are willing to work 40 hours a week, companies will prefer to hire them. (Because 1 40-hour employee is more efficient than 2 20-hour employees, since you avoid communication overhead.) So everyone else, even those who would rather accept less pay for fewer hours, has to do the same to keep up. We can get forced, as a society, into a choice that most people don't really want.

The alternative is regulation stipulating maximum working hours (as in, say, France) but people in this country are not likely to go along with that...

[ketsugami]

Although I am forced by years of econ arguments to note that the idea that we will "run out of work for people to do" is a fallacy based on the assumption that total consumption is invariant. That might be true, someday, but historically we have yet to find the "top" to personal consumption and I doubt we will anywhere short of Star Trek.

[laurion]

I'm going to go plant some dirt now.

It's a good thing I really enjoy my job, even if it isn't my 'passion'.

Also, http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QPKKQnijnsM if you haven't seen it.

[lisefrac]

I sense some resentment here... I didn't think I was saying anything particularly contentious, but do you disagree?

[laurion]

Oh, no! No resentment at all. I was actually thinking 'I'm going to a peasant themed SCA event in April. Guess I'll plant dirt at it.' Because I thought the phrase 'plant dirt' was funny.

The other bits were idle commentary parallel to the topic. I do enjoy my job, parts of it enough that I've started doing it as contract work for other people in my evening and weekend hours even. But I almost always have other projects that I'm more fired up about, like most people I suspect. But even if I could sell the fruits of my passions (ew... sorry), well, I can't. My passions don't usually produce tangibles, and the ones that do are usually of lower quality and higher cost than what you can get elsewhere. Plus, there are plenty of studies that show what happens to the level of passion when it turns into a profession.

[ghilledhu]

I actually have a thought on the whole "do what you love and the money will follow thing." I think it's less about pursuing your dream and hoping it becomes lucrative, and more about having a wide range of interests and knowledge because that increases your chances of one of them becoming lucrative.

Case in point: I got upgraded from proofreader to rewriter because of my early love for Sherlock Holmes. I didn't read the Holmes books because I thought, "Hey, there could be a career in this for me!", I read them because they were enjoyable. And they happened to be the interest that got me a higher-paying gig. It could just as easily have been Louisa May Alcott, Tolkien, or any of the other authors I loved and read early on. But a wider range of interests increases your chances to make one of them earn your bread.

[cristovau]

I have a lot of conflicting thoughts about the "do what you love" philosophy. I mean it is all good when you love some art and pursue it, even in the spare time you carve out, but what happens when after you conduct intense soul searching you decide what you love to do is sleep in, munch chips and play video games?

No, I think the "do a job that doesn't crush your soul and enjoy your free time fully" mentality has it's benefits.

Having said that, my mom managed to become a professional writer when she was my age, so I am conflicted about this.