4 ms·

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
        So going to the bathroom is work, as is rolling one's body out of direct sunlight and ordering takeout. It's not surprising that people who don't have to work at a job any more continue to do things like breathe and change clothes, so let's not talk about that; rather let's talk about how people who don't have to work a job anymore continue to work a job - like what the article is about.
    - orangecat 10y ago
      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". So by that definition, independently wealthy people never "work" because they could always quit without financial worries.

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
      So going to the bathroom is work, as is rolling one's body out of direct sunlight and ordering takeout. It's not surprising that people who don't have to work at a job any more continue to do things like breathe and change clothes, so let's not talk about that; rather let's talk about how people who don't have to work a job anymore continue to work a job - like what the article is about.
  - orangecat 10y ago
    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". So by that definition, independently wealthy people never "work" because they could always quit without financial worries.