The cult of doing business
commonwealmagazine.org
commonwealmagazine.org
Word on the street is that Cryptonomicon was required reading at Thiel's early Palantir. I read it now and it definitely hits differently. To accept that you must dwell in something in order to understand it, and therefore in order to wield power over it with any wisdom, is the antithesis of "The Cult of Doing Business". The hubris is baked in deep at an epistemic level, which is demonstrated to lead to epic moral hazards at an epidemic level.
It can be summarized in one sentence: ‘Get a monopoly if you can.’ Brilliant insight there - thanks captain obvious!
If the author wasn’t famous it wouldn’t have even been published, and certainly wouldn’t have appeared as a ‘best business book.’
The story of the modern Western economy is that all the low-hanging fruit has been plucked from the tree of technological and productivity improvements (in the context of the regulatory environment).
Therefore, the proportion of profit and revenue rooted in exploiting human flaws is and will continue to rise.
Examples are:
* Humans engage with drama and negative content (ad supported media)
* Humans overindex on a sense of family/belonging/tribe (employers as family extract more work for less pay)
* Etc
Perhaps the biggest is regulatory capture and exploitation of regulatory loopholes.
Turns out if you give women a choice to have children, a lot of them will say no. They'd rather have career. Having children has, like, a lot of downsides. It can literally kill you.
Having a smaller population with advanced automation technology is completely okay. And if a society feels it really values having more people around through births (and not through migration for example) they can alter policies to support families. (For example see how the child tax credits policy is not made permanent, also it's ridiculously small compared to cost of living and cost of child rearing. Then there's the cost of education, cost of having a bigger house, then there's the whole fucking problem of logistics, which is extremely costly in the US [because streets are not kid safe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43364761 )
That’s an interesting remark, because in hyperindividualistic societies, the family is actually undervalued. So if employers use a sense of family to exploit employees, it isn’t because people “overindex” family. It’s because we underindex it, because we have a distorted and disordered relationship with family.
That is, given the familial nature of human beings and their basic need for family, and given the effect hyperindividualist societies have of encouraging and incentivizing the alienation of people from family life, it is not surprising that people might begin to view their place of employment as a kind of surrogate for family, at least at an emotional and frankly superficial level, especially when the employer encourages that kind of perception.
So, hyperindividualist societies actually predispose people to that kind of manipulation. A person from a healthy family is less vulnerable to it. His family life is his primary social home and his primary social point of reference.
The best boss I ever had never tried to be charismatic. He was a good listener, he was fair, and he took us seriously.
The Naploean Hill/Dale Carnegie types make my skin crawl.
1. why is it directed at making money rather serving society? 2. Why does it glorify the rich rather than the "lowly workman" mentioned in the intro to your wikipedia link? 3. lots of evidence against it
The first two of these are even less convincing given that background of a religion that condemns the accumulation of wealth ("eye of a needle" etc.) and literally worships a "lowly workman".
As for evidence, this section of the wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_work_ethic#Criticis...
i think this particular phenomenon is rooted in calvinism, particularly in North America, and calvinists hated humanity. It also wouldn't surprise me if the protestants coming over here normally prone to social responsibility (eg some lutherans) were less willing to show up for their community than those in the old world.
All that to say I'm not sure it really matters what exactly was written in the Bible because clearly a lot of the supposed followers of Christ never read it.
By the way, I highly recommend all of nonstampcollector's videos! https://youtu.be/7gvv_UM7CYg?si=Yer3KeaJZs7FQ03s
Also, I think its clear that some of this predates modern American evangelical Christianity, and some lies in secular values.
> That someone could convince Christ's followers to basically believe the opposite of the Gospel.
There are a number of historical examples. Most recently prosperity gospel and Positive Christianity?
> All that to say I'm not sure it really matters what exactly was written in the Bible because clearly a lot of the supposed followers of Christ never read it.
Often the ones who place the most importance on the Bible alone, and the most likely to be literalists! I think that is the root of it, because read as a "book" rather than a collection of documents, that exists in multiple versions, subject to disputes about wording and translation, each document written within a cultural (sometimes even personal) context, you can make it mean whatever you want to.
Quite often they refer to the bible as infallible or perfect even though their church's canon officially and openly is very nuanced.
I think it is fair to say they are in conflict with the broader church (i.e. the body of all Christians) or Christian tradition, but not fair to say they are in conflict with their own church.
It’d be wild if they had. It’s a harder read than lots of books that the median reader struggles to understand, let alone enjoy enough to actually make it through. Most folks lack basically all historical context for the tales in it, and the book itself, so it reads as this unmoored set of confusingly-arranged-and-selected stories that have no hope of really making sense to them without a pile of reference books open alongside (what proportion of people are comfortable with and willing to engage in that style of reading?)
On the other hand, it’s also wild that more haven’t—one would think it’d be way up their list of life priorities. I take it as a sign they’re not really, under the veneer and trappings, convinced about the eternal (!!!) ramifications of the whole deal. “Well sure my eternal soul is on the line and I ‘believe’ I’m holding the literal word of the creator of the universe… but it’s haaaard and boring.” LOL.
This is why the Catholic Church speaks of both tradition and scripture. You need the lens of unbroken tradition to interpret scripture, as tradition is the cumulative knowledge over millennia (including period context) that allows for the possibility for grounded interpretation (never mind interpreting from bad translations). Indeed, tradition precedes canonical scripture historically: consider that the biblical canon was only established at the Council of Rome in 382, which means Christians had existed without a biblical canon for three centuries.
Compare this with sola scriptura which leads to either incoherence or the demotion of biblical scripture to the level of some stuff some guys wrote that you can read however you want [0]. The tacit doctrine at play is often that of perspicuity, which, given the endless proliferation of Protestant sects, would seems at the very least highly suspect.
[0] https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/logic-and-pr...
> consider that the biblical canon was only established at the Council of Rome in 382, which means Christians had existed without a biblical canon for three centuries.
Yes, but the older testament was already well established, and the documents of the new testament were available. The Council made a firm decision of which ones were canon, but they were all documents which were already widely read.
There are other Biblical canons and they do not, in themselves, greatly change the doctrine.
> Compare this with sola scriptura which leads to either incoherence or the demotion of biblical scripture to the level of some stuff some guys wrote that you can read however you want [0].
A lot of protestant churches are prima scriptura, not sola scriptura.
An alternative explanation is for the first 140 years of the US, "Protestants" were the "people that did the work". Catholicism was illegal until the states re-wrote their constitutions/laws after the revolution (or ratification of the First Amendment, which ever came first).
Also, there wasn't anything to do but work. If you wanted a house, you cleared land and built it. 50% of early European settlers were indentured servants.
Oh and there wasn't any money or banks. Tobacco was the currency (in Maryland/Virginia). The only business partner was the UK, that managed the colonies as businesses. The entrepreneurial part was the Crown getting shareholders to foot the bill for provisions for the colonies. Shares in Virginia were sold on the London Stock Exchange. Maryland had a sole proprietor that funded the infrastructure build out.
Source:
The implication being homo- and asexuals join the clergy because it obviates the expectation that they will marry? How does this lead to secularization?
Protestantism lacks a clerical tradition (reverends and ministers can still get married, and there are no monasteries to join), so how does your theory apply there?
Whose owners then migrated into state bureaucracy and public services . From prussia to the pentagon, the smithers clichee is very much alive and a byproduct of that culture.
And rules based and hierarchy based as such systems are, they develop a live of their own. Until a monarch as pope competitor appears, takes over or copies the machinery for the catholics, or a protestant develops rigor by internalizing the inquisition and deciding to dedicate his life to paperwork for jesuses justice and to escape temptation .
edit: Of all the different philosophies a young person can subscribe to, entering in the middle of my life, I'm lucky to have chosen one of the better ones. I remember at the time really wanted to embrace an identity of being American and here is a founding father who helped draft the Declaration of Independence and signed the Constitution who was born and raised with the institution of slavery owning slaves himself and evolving into an outspoken anti-slavery advocate working to abolish the practice. That is what it means to be an American, to grow, change, and become better, just.
> I cannot boast of much success in acquiring the reality of this virtue, but I had a good deal with regard to the appearance of it.
(I alway laugh at this because to be truly humble a person can not boast of being virtuous therefore can't boast of being humble which creates a paradox.)
“The good Lord gave you two eyes, two ears, but only one mouth”
I'm confused by this pattern of people reading book reviews and treating them as if they were the book itself, or an original article.
Isn't the purpose to decide whether you want to buy the book?
I like working, I’m not quite sure what I would do otherwise. It is perfectly acceptable to have genuine relationships with your coworkers, employees, and customers, but “genuine” is the key. What’s bad for you is not work, but lying and trying to pull a fast one on everyone around you.
Work, family, and a little leisure. Those are the three pillars. This hasn’t changed since we grew a brain stem, it comes far before language or farming.
While Maslow's hierarchy of needs help us understand motivation, this is the most true.
Of course like all things the entrepreneurial ethos gets very silly and begins to incorporate a lot of very silly other ideas (think and grow rich!) when you dive deep into it, but as I’ve gotten older I’ve realized that most movements, philosophies, and ideologies get silly if you go deep.
Thinkers, like people on dates, put their best foot forward first. As you get to know them is when you find out they never wash their underwear.
The alternative, I guess, is finding meaning in things other than work, and that’s okay too. Or you can do both.
In general, depending on work for one's ultimate meaning is dumb because whether or not you worked "hard enough" is judged by other people, not the entity responsible for putting humans (and therefore you) on the planet in the first place--you're already here so you obviously are supposed to be here, otherwise you wouldn't be. Good work makes you deserve to be among others but it can't make you deserve to exist on the planet.
>where one side has a lot more power than the other side
This is life, in its entirety. Even those who feel like they live a 'free' life should realize they depend on things like national security and access to healthcare, right? So the power dynamic there doesn't make sense to me, unless you're also constantly in fear of all these other systems falling apart. Humans have worked to earn money to live forever. There wouldn't be money to give to workers if there wasn't an imbalance to begin with. Even farmers sustaining their own land have to pay workers to harvest.
> whether or not you worked "hard enough" is judged by other people
This IMO is a personal failure. Others don't determine whether I'm satisfied with my work, I do. I'm proud of my work even if others don't care for it.
> not the entity responsible for putting humans (and therefore you) on the planet in the first place--you're already here so you obviously are supposed to be here, otherwise you wouldn't be
There is no entity responsible, just like there is no reason for 'being here'. Your parents are to thank for raising you, but it could have just as well been other parents or another child! Our lives are a gift we're lucky to experience and we should enjoy it to the fullest on our own terms. If work fulfills you, great. If it doesn't, then do something else.
I really dislike people putting their value systems on others, especially around these kinds of topics. Telling people that what they think is valuable is in fact not is akin to telling people to believe in your faith, or how to raise their kids, etc.
Edit: Also curious why you would create a throwaway for this kind of opinion.
Who told you you did not have meaning?
"But it’s even better to treat love itself as the most important work."
Your mortgage servicer doesn't accept love as payment.
The Japanese take their jobs so seriously, that some have committed suicide, upon losing their jobs. Some CEOs have committed suicide, if their business fails, or there’s a big scandal (an idea that I sometimes think could be useful on this side of the pond).
Taking personal Accountability for the corporation under your direct management? Yes.
P. S. I'll bet that the second one is the scariest one for most C-types.
Also the message can still be very true even if it comes from a messenger you don't like.
“In a democracy private citizens see a man of their own rank in life who becomes possessed of riches and power in a few years; this spectacle excites their surprise and envy, and they are led to inquire how the person who was yesterday very equal is today their ruler. ” ― Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America
In 21st century America, the internet and social media has poured huge amounts of gas on this fire that was already burning quite hot for a long time.
Even in my own lifetime, the character Gordon Gekko in the movie Wallstreet has gone from a villain to pretty much the aspiration and hero of most high school seniors. Greed is good, greed make number go up.
Since our first surplus all those years ago, we have continued to increase our surplus relentlessly. The problem is the more surplus we have, the more the mind idles, the more we try to invent things for the mind to do.
That is where I see the cult, the cult consists of faithless wanderers who have decided that the only valid use of surplus is to gain more surplus, whether it’s through positive means like improving technology or business, or negative means like slavery and exploitation. It’s a hollow existence. There is a righteous path, it’s using our surplus to embrace the positive aspects of our spirit rather than the negative ones.
Rather than build a system that works for everyone in an altruistic manner, we have a system that funnels surplus to our most sycophantic, manipulative, exploitative, brutal members. It might just be human nature, our worst instincts tend to beat our best instincts.
This is correct. The surplus was for a few. Agriculture did not even give commoners more free time. Rather it gave them less.
Which is a complete heel-turn from the false narrative in your original comment. Well, the narrative can only be true if only the ones with surplus are human beings and the people toiling the field are something else than “we humans”.
> It might just be human nature, our worst instincts tend to beat our best instincts.
Human nature. The standard refrain of the sociopath enabler.
Once we have the surplus of resources, but no job, I wonder what life would look like.
Religion predates the emergence of both agriculture and animal husbandry. These belief systems didn’t emerge as a result of surplus.
> There is a righteous path, it’s using our surplus to embrace the positive aspects of our spirit rather than the negative ones.
How do you reconcile this belief with the idea there is no meaning, and that “there isn’t actually anything that needs to be done”?
On your second point, “there is no meaning”, I’m not sure I exactly prescribe that. I think there is no universal meaning innate to humanity. There are meaningful things, like love, friendship, having your basic physical needs met. And when I say that “there isn’t actually anything that actually needs to be done”, I mean that if you have a surplus of all your needs, say just after harvest, you don’t actually need to do anything. All of your needs are met, you don’t need to go and gather or hunt for food every day. Prior to agriculture, surpluses were not regular.
Addressing the spirit of your second point though, even today there is much to be done. As a group we have and produce more surplus than we could ever use, but the distribution is such that many people live in abject poverty, or precariously close to it.
It’s impossible to know because we lack written records from the period, but this largely aligns with the earliest religious writings; they are mythical stories, often a sort of folk physics. The point is that the search for meaning is implicit in being able to ask a question. Animals might try to discover an algorithm of behavior to obtain a reward (e.g. press the button, get a biscuit), but it isn’t clear that they can even ask questions (“Why does pressing the button produce a biscuit?”). The question “Why does it rain?” doesn’t ask anything philosophical, but it does imply “I need to know why it rains.”
We could reduce this all to purely evolutionary terms (“I need to know why it rains to further propagate my genes”), but my hunch is that something deeper is going on.
> I think there is no universal meaning innate to humanity. There are meaningful things, like love, friendship, having your basic physical needs met.
I appreciate from the tone of your post that this probably is not your position, but this line of reasoning is the cause of a lot of strife. If there is no universal meaning (or no means by which we can ascertain it, e.g. in moral skepticism), then we can’t really go on to say that there is an ethical imperative to fight injustice; we can’t even really define anything as injustice.
> All of your needs are met, you don’t need to go and gather or hunt for food every day.
I see what you mean. I had interpreted your comment to be in the vein of certain strains of eastern or postmodern thought which take that claim rather literally; we don’t “have” to do anything, and every choice is just as valid as every other choice. Whereas what it sounds like you are saying is that when our physical needs are met, the mind has time to wander, and this leads to the hedonic treadmill that motivates adventure, conquest, philosophizing, and things like that.
I think there’s some merit to this idea; I suspect being engaged in satisfying pressing physical needs would correlate with lower levels of neuroticism (anxiety, depression, etc.), though this is only a hunch. The reason I took exception to your comment was that it seemed like it was reducing all of those activities to being merely a product of a flawed mentality resulting from material excess, whereas I would contest that and say that human history is in fact a product of something meaningful - not just personally meaningful, but ultimately meaningful.
This whole search for a better optimum, like other evolutionary mechanisms, results in survival and proliferation, but not necessarily in happiness. Proliferation seems to correlate positively with happiness, but up to a limit, and the limit is all too visible.
On the other hand, reaching the true global optimum does not seem too blissful either: any change would be a change to the worse, so all development, all motion except basically spinning at place would need to stop. This is not very different from death. OTOH the human mind, as it is, would still try to keep on searching, still feel somehow discontent.
(I agree that the reasonable path is to try to limit the suffering of living beings, including but not limited to ourselves. It's the least bad option.)
It's "mute compulsion"
The article and the book it reviews isn't really about what happened in roughly 9,750 of those years. It's about a narrow band of meaning and apologies that happened during the small slice of most recent time due the vast majority of people falling for Worthington's Law[1].
Coloring the vast majority of the time slice with this idiosyncratic problem seems like the kind of notion that would be covered in the book. It's also confusing-- from those 10,000 years there must still be dozens of mainstream, practical political ideologies and belief systems based on embracing "the positive aspects of our spirit." It seems like you're identify this subset as examples of the problem you're discussing, but also as a potential solution to the same problem. I don't get it.
The idea behind this - expressing oneself - isn't American. When ideas like that come to this world, they come to many nations at the same time, the greatest minds pick them up and create their own interpretation, based on local culture and their beliefs. Some of those great minds see the great ideas well and express them cleanly. Others distort the ideas with their egos and sometimes even add poison, creating intentionally misleading interpretations.
The idea that you need to express yourself, find a calling that's bigger than you, is true and spiritual in nature. It draws attention to a core aspect of what we are. However some of the great minds are also selfish: they are able to see this idea, they recognize it as an important and powerful truth, but then they find a way to distort it for personal gain. So they create a thin lie around this truth: that you need to express yourself thru work for self at the expense of others, because that's the only way to survive and thrive in this world of scarcity. Most people will be fooled because this lie is an artwork of minds far greater than them. So the common folk embrace this false interpretation and start living according to it.
Because of his tenured position, he wants for nothing while, outside of STEM, contributes very little. He is wholly reliant on the types of men and women he bashes. It's the dilettante who mocks the farmer as he eats the farmer's food. Reminds of the critique of self righteous pacifists during the World Way 2(Godwin violation. Apologies.) "How easy it is to be a pacifist safe and secure behind the security of the American Navy's big guns." How easy it is to mock entrepreneurs, capitalism, and strivers when they permit your standard of living and very existence.
The author doesn't mock capitalism or strivers, it mocks the self-promulgating Sect of Success, and points out how it preys on vulnerable people, and coerce them through peer-pressure into the good old "pulling themselves up by their bootstraps" and then make them feel inadequate when they doesn't work out, and they burn out, and so on.
[citation needed]
:)
So even if people end up in these very black-and-white groups it's doubtful that they are predetermined. But it's more like it's a spectrum, and some people start from a very good place some from a very hard one. And there are many important and distinct factors affecting one's relationship with work, success, motivation, diligence. Not to mention that luckily people's life (and relationship with work) can get better.
It's tempting to make sweeping generalizations about others to explain the ways they confound and frustrate us. But it's essential to hew to the truth and accept that life is ambiguous, people are baffling, and simplistic narratives do more to give us comfort and reinforce our biases than they do explain the world around us.
Still, I respect the view that the individual is private unto themselves in a profound way. But I would also say people tend to show you what they believe in how they act. If you pay attention you will begin to notice when someone has put their hopes in power, finances, achievement, or ideology, to give a few popular examples. And it’s not about what people say animates them, or even about what they believe about themselves—it’s how they act.
There's light-years of difference between observing an individual person's actions and drawing conclusions about what they believe (this is in line with what I was referring to with "catching glimpses") and generalizing to conclude that everyone is predestined to be either enthusiastic and lively or a miserable wretch. It's far more likely you caught someone on a good or bad day, to pick just one alternative hypothesis. People contain multitudes.
I also pay attention to the difference between what people say and what they do, and I agree it is meaningful and would even says it's a critical part of being around people. But it's easy to get carried away and pretend we know more than we really do, simplistic stories that explains everyone's behavior is very seductive. A model's ability to generalize is inversely proportional to how powerful it's predictions are. Stories like this that take people and bin them into two groups that control their destiny have huge predictive power - and apply to almost nobody.
Whereas to return to game theory, assuming people are black boxes that optimize some unknown and idiosyncratic utility function which we infer based on their revealed preferences can apply to nearly everyone and everything. But it's predictions are very narrow in scope. You can use an A/B test to optimize any change to any UI flow, and it'll tell you which one converts better. But it won't tell you why.
If your job is so unrewarding or unfulfilling, try something else! You are not married to a job, you won't be court marshaled for leaving, and you likely won't be rewarded for trying to keep a "job for life" like our parents generation might have been.
Maybe you burned out and simply changing scenery will improve your life. Maybe you are in the wrong type of role and trying something new helps.
Doing nothing certainly won't help!
Appreciating the magic of living in a thriving economy (true for most of the world for decades now) is partly attitude.
Yes. Louis CK did a bit ~15 years back about someone throwing a tantrum on a plane when the (then brand new tech) WiFi broke down.
Life may not be perfect, but we all live downstream from Ugh the Caveman who once held a blunt rock in each hand, decided to whack them together, and bootstrapped the entire human tech tree, all while facing lions, sabre-toothed tigers, mammoths, ice ages, terrible diseases, and hunger.
Framed this way one can be more grateful and recognize that life is not frictionless. The more you try to make it frictionless the more frivolous your grievances become.
Many of my hardworking friends also have interesting hobbies/interests outside work they pursue and are known for. Arts, literary, cuisine, gardening, sports, charity, whatever. Generally putting more out into the world in other non-work venues.
However practically none of my more "slacker" friends have anything to show for their time outside of work. They define life more in terms of what they are avoiding. Hobbies are more consumptive - watching TV/film, dining out, travel, etc.
Maybe at the end of the day being good at any one thing takes some intellectual ability, commitment and effort.. so once you've applied that in one area you are likely able to do so elsewhere.
The older I get the more I look at this bifurcation in terms of - wtf am I going to do in retirement.
You read a lot of early retirement experiences and the people that "retire to something" (a hobby/volunteer work/etc) do much better than those that "retire from something" (can't wait to stop working!).
Some work may be these things, but not all work. If your work is consistently both then there is a good chance your work involves some creation that is satisfying you.
I do agree that taking the morality out of our everyday tasks can greatly affect our outlook on life.
Imagine for a moment you are talking to someone who works a minimum wage job at McDonald's to provide for their children. How do you imagine they would respond to your suggestion they abandon their responsibility to their children to find a more mentally stimulating job? How would that be anything but patently absurd?
Did I say that? Also, there's a career ladder at McDonalds open for all their employees. Apart from this, the skills you learn at McDonalds is transferable to other occupations in the same sector or other sectors. I should know, I worked those kind of jobs, much worse than McDonalds. So it's quite easy for me to imagine what that's like.
I'm not going to entertain the idea that somebody is locked into their current occupation for life, unless they are a literal slave. My suggestions and advice has no benefit for people who are enslaved, but does that mean that the ideas cannot be discussed at all? Does your comment have any benefit for somebody in that situation? Maybe we should never discuss exercise and health because some people have medical conditions? We shouldn't discuss diet and cooking because some people have allergies, and so on.
Most of us need to work to survive, so let's make the best of it. I also need to sleep to survive, and I do my best to enjoy it. The same with eating etc.
The replies to my initial comment demonstrates the spiritual divide. Just by me stating that i love working, people here get the wildest assumptions into their head, because they cannot imagine anybody enjoying work by and for itself.
I think agree with you in spirit but maybe from a slightly different perspective. I see people divided between whether they spend the time they have control over consuming vs creating (content, art, whatever) more-so than their “work” but work is a pretty loose term.
I enjoy working on things. I enjoy pulling the weeds in my garden and I enjoy the sanding of my woodworking pieces. There is no morality in those individual tasks to me and I like a nice healthy garden and beautiful furniture.
Also, I’ve yet to have a salaried job where I wanted less three day weekends.
You are right that these topics are hard to talk about.
Yes, you kinda did say that. You said people should leave their jobs if they weren't stimulating, and when someone pointed out this was lacking in nuance, you waved it off completely. Now you're dismissing anyone who is in that situation, oh they're just a slave, of course my remarks don't apply to slaves.
So yeah, you are refusing to acknowledge the flaws in your argument or the reality of people who don't have the privilege to prioritize their own enrichment over other responsibilities. And I'm not very impressed with that.
> Does that mean that the ideas cannot be discussed at all?
Just because someone challenges your ideas doesn't mean they're trying to shut you out of the conversation. I'm engaging in conversation with you. I wouldn't respond, and certainly wouldn't respond with questions, if I just wanted you to stop talking. Again, this is not a good faith interpretation of my criticism.
If you have dominated your work completely, generally you are looking for a promotion. And if you can't get it, then you start looking for another place to work. You don't have to leave your current job before you've found your next job. But it doesn't matter that I explain this, because spiritually negative people will find just another negative perspective to latch on to. Because life to them is only suffering and misery from birth to death, no matter what.
What's your advice to those who don't have the "privilege"? Can you help them? Or do you think that is my duty?
Maybe have some gratitude that your work has given that to you, rather than assuming that other people who are drained by their work are somehow spiritually inferior.
These people are drained long before they enter the work force. And no matter what job they have they will be drained by it. You probably saw a good chunk of them in school.
Some of the most anxious, unhappy, complaining people I met were the underemployed spouses of the very well off. And this isn't a sexist statement because it was both women and men. And some good percent of them had no kids either. Truly no responsibilities.
The kind of people who I'd bump into at the gym just after sunrise on the way to a long day of work, and they lament to me how their weekly in-home massage got cancelled due to a scheduling conflict, and they just don't know what to do with their day. LOL.
One can be happy or unhappy at any objective income/wealth/stress level. You'd be very surprised.
Seriously, who do you talk to that enables such viewpoints? I suspect not many people want to talk to you after their shift.
Work isn't the problem; it's doing bullshit work that's undervalued so that morons who don't work can eat. This has held true at every part of the pay scale. It's just the compensation on the upper end helps you have hope you may find meaningful work that can feed you.
I suspect we all WANT to work. We just need to eat, too.
Exactly! You have to find that path before it's too late. Each one of us have only 80 years at most.
> Work isn't the problem; it's doing bullshit work that's undervalued so that morons who don't work can eat.
Agree. Doing dishonest or unethical jobs is not real work and makes nobody happy.
> I suspect we all WANT to work. We just need to eat, too.
And within those two goals there is a great world of opportunities.
What if you needed to work for free?
> I love working
You should stop hating being alive. There's so much more in the universe than work.
Exercising is hard work. Who lives life feeling better, the person who exercises or the person who just sits all day?
This is not true, generally. There is such a thing as free lunch. Not everything must be a battle, and not every battle has a winner.
Some people lean into work because they believe that by sacrificing they will discover the key to happiness. So they sacrifice things that feel good, like spending time laughing with friends or maybe delicious food. In short, they shrink their lives, purposefully removing the good parts. Some go so far as to remove good parts for absolutely no gain. Maybe they're gluten-free, but they're not gluten intolerant. Some are even purposefully lonely in some extreme sacrifice of human nature. Almost like monks or cardinals - they believe if they sacrifice something so fundamental, like sex or love, that they will achieve something other's cannot.
The truth is a lot of that sacrifice will be for nothing. Sometimes the right choice is doing something stupid, or doing something unproductive.