5 ms·

Of course you're going to find someone who wants to work. In those cases, the money is second to the actual stuff being done. It's most likely a hobby or someth

by kefka 10y ago

Of course you're going to find someone who wants to work. In those cases, the money is second to the actual stuff being done. It's most likely a hobby or something that they enjoy greatly, and probably would do for free. Most people aren't like that. Their hobbies don't coincide with "acceptable business practices". And frankly, awesome. There's plenty of things to do that are enriching for all, and that have no discernible business value. As for me, I wouldn't do the job I currently do now (systems engineer for a network operations). I'd much rather work in research and development discovering new things, or new ways to do things. I already do that in my spare time. But making money in my position is required, so I do things to survive, and fill in time of my hobbies. That would change, and bloody quick if I ever ran across fuck-you money.

omginternets 10y ago
So then you would work ... you'd just do a different kind of work. Most of us are the same way. I think this is ultimately the point being made.
- kefka 10y ago
  Nope. Not even close. With hobbies, I can start and stop them as I choose. My livelihood is not bound to the requirement that I do X to get money $Y. If I want to do the hobby of "drink whiskey and watch all of netflix", so be it. If I want to take up surfing, awesome. Or if I want to dabble in the arts, there's noone to stop me. My hobbies would bounce around as to what's interesting, fun, or neat stuff to do. Right now, what stops me, is that I am working class. I have to work in order to live. 40 hours a week is "theirs", and I have the rest of time to eat, sleep, and do whatever else. (Edit: and wow, the stockholm syndrome is strong. So many people, trying to reclassify what work is and isn't. And then saying, oh yeah doing something is work. We're not talking work in the physics sense here, but in the capitalistic sense of "if you no workey, you no eaty and no livey".)
  - morgante 10y ago
    Nothing you just said contradicts the point being made. Most people have to work on things they don't necessarily find fulfilling. That doesn't mean certain wealthy people don't find hobbies which also happen to make them money.
  - omginternets 10y ago
    Hmm, no I think you're playing with words. I understand that you wouldn't work to make money, but you would still work in the sense of undertaking an effortful activity. So again, you would work, albeit not for money. Lest you continue with the (frankly rude) accusations, this is precisely what I would do as well. I just disagree with the notion that these hobbies don't constitute work (in the sense of 'not rest/leisure'). For all your railing against puritan work ethic, you have a very puritanical definition of work.
    - kefka 10y ago
      Seriously? You're arguing that hobbies and doing what you want is "really work"? The idea of Work, in a Capitalistic sense, is activities you do for someone else, that make money for them above and beyond what you are paid for, and that you are compulsed to do with the threat of "no money, no food, no home". With what I am talking about, I can change freely to whatever I wish to do, right now. I have no specter hanging over me threatening "no access and utilization of basic resources". If I want to chill and do nothing, I do precisely that. If I want to develop stuffs with electronics, I can do that as well. And when I'm bored, I can walk away with not a care. Try that in a "corporate setting". And my "frankly rude accusations" match up pretty well with the original stockholm situation itself. In the end, if you don't "play nice" with capitalism, it threatens to end you as well, albeit slower than what the bank robbers wanted to do. And yet, so many people bounce to capitalism's defence. Hence, Stockholm Syndrome.
      - cableshaft 10y ago
        If you're going to argue definitions, you should probably quote your source. Dictionary.com's primary definition for work is "exertion or effort directed to produce or accomplish something". There's no mention of you "having to do it for someone else", as you say. Although later definitions do mention employment. So it seems like you're both arguing whether definition 1 or definition 3 of a word is the right definition.
        pessimizer 10y ago
morgante 10y ago
Sure, I agree that most people aren't doing work that they would do for free. I don't think that's true for most wealthy people. By and large, every wealthy person I know is working on things they find deeply interesting and challenging. The problem is with people (who have to work to live) assuming that people who don't have to work to live are working in the same kind of roles just due to some social pressure.
jasode 10y ago
>Of course you're going to find someone who wants to work. In those cases, the money is second to the actual stuff being done. It's most likely a hobby or something that they enjoy greatly, and probably would do for free. Yes, that's the type of people the article is talking about. A good example is somebody like Apple's Jony Ive with a net worth of ~$130 million[1]. He doesn't have to work another day in his life, and yet he still does. And he's not just working every day remotely from home in some ceremonial role. He still goes to the Apple office and is actively engaged with leading the design teams. His "hobby" seems to be designing materials into products millions of consumers will like. He happens to express that hobby at the Apple office instead of his hoe garage. If you walked up to him and told him he's only continuing to work because he's brainwashed from Puritanical Stockholm Syndrome, I think'd he'd rightfully feel insulted. We can acknowledge that you wouldn't do systems network engineering if you didn't have to work for money but that's not Jony Ive's situation. For him, hobby==work. [1]http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonykosner/2013/11/03/does-apples-jony-ive-have-the-worlds-best-job/#7b0397561800 http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonykosner/2013/11/03/does-ap...

by kefka 10y ago

omginternets 10y ago

So then you would work ... you'd just do a different kind of work. Most of us are the same way. I think this is ultimately the point being made.

kefka 10y ago
Nope. Not even close. With hobbies, I can start and stop them as I choose. My livelihood is not bound to the requirement that I do X to get money $Y. If I want to do the hobby of "drink whiskey and watch all of netflix", so be it. If I want to take up surfing, awesome. Or if I want to dabble in the arts, there's noone to stop me. My hobbies would bounce around as to what's interesting, fun, or neat stuff to do. Right now, what stops me, is that I am working class. I have to work in order to live. 40 hours a week is "theirs", and I have the rest of time to eat, sleep, and do whatever else. (Edit: and wow, the stockholm syndrome is strong. So many people, trying to reclassify what work is and isn't. And then saying, oh yeah doing something is work. We're not talking work in the physics sense here, but in the capitalistic sense of "if you no workey, you no eaty and no livey".)
- morgante 10y ago
  Nothing you just said contradicts the point being made. Most people have to work on things they don't necessarily find fulfilling. That doesn't mean certain wealthy people don't find hobbies which also happen to make them money.
- omginternets 10y ago
  Hmm, no I think you're playing with words. I understand that you wouldn't work to make money, but you would still work in the sense of undertaking an effortful activity. So again, you would work, albeit not for money. Lest you continue with the (frankly rude) accusations, this is precisely what I would do as well. I just disagree with the notion that these hobbies don't constitute work (in the sense of 'not rest/leisure'). For all your railing against puritan work ethic, you have a very puritanical definition of work.
  - kefka 10y ago
    Seriously? You're arguing that hobbies and doing what you want is "really work"? The idea of Work, in a Capitalistic sense, is activities you do for someone else, that make money for them above and beyond what you are paid for, and that you are compulsed to do with the threat of "no money, no food, no home". With what I am talking about, I can change freely to whatever I wish to do, right now. I have no specter hanging over me threatening "no access and utilization of basic resources". If I want to chill and do nothing, I do precisely that. If I want to develop stuffs with electronics, I can do that as well. And when I'm bored, I can walk away with not a care. Try that in a "corporate setting". And my "frankly rude accusations" match up pretty well with the original stockholm situation itself. In the end, if you don't "play nice" with capitalism, it threatens to end you as well, albeit slower than what the bank robbers wanted to do. And yet, so many people bounce to capitalism's defence. Hence, Stockholm Syndrome.
    - cableshaft 10y ago
      If you're going to argue definitions, you should probably quote your source. Dictionary.com's primary definition for work is "exertion or effort directed to produce or accomplish something". There's no mention of you "having to do it for someone else", as you say. Although later definitions do mention employment. So it seems like you're both arguing whether definition 1 or definition 3 of a word is the right definition.
      - pessimizer 10y ago

morgante 10y ago

Sure, I agree that most people aren't doing work that they would do for free. I don't think that's true for most wealthy people. By and large, every wealthy person I know is working on things they find deeply interesting and challenging. The problem is with people (who have to work to live) assuming that people who don't have to work to live are working in the same kind of roles just due to some social pressure.

jasode 10y ago

>Of course you're going to find someone who wants to work. In those cases, the money is second to the actual stuff being done. It's most likely a hobby or something that they enjoy greatly, and probably would do for free. Yes, that's the type of people the article is talking about. A good example is somebody like Apple's Jony Ive with a net worth of ~$130 million[1]. He doesn't have to work another day in his life, and yet he still does. And he's not just working every day remotely from home in some ceremonial role. He still goes to the Apple office and is actively engaged with leading the design teams. His "hobby" seems to be designing materials into products millions of consumers will like. He happens to express that hobby at the Apple office instead of his hoe garage. If you walked up to him and told him he's only continuing to work because he's brainwashed from Puritanical Stockholm Syndrome, I think'd he'd rightfully feel insulted. We can acknowledge that you wouldn't do systems network engineering if you didn't have to work for money but that's not Jony Ive's situation. For him, hobby==work. [1]http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonykosner/2013/11/03/does-apples-jony-ive-have-the-worlds-best-job/#7b0397561800 http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonykosner/2013/11/03/does-ap...