6 ms·

Don’t Do for Money What Others Do for Love

90 points by bjterry 9y ago

kristianc 9y ago
> Consider the work you do. If you love your job, and particularly if you love that type of work more than anyone else you work with, would you keep doing it for a modest pay cut? Really think about the answer to this question. I’ll wait. When the writer of a piece tells me what to do like this, my first instinct is actually to close the tab.
- liveoneggs 9y ago
  Consider why you feel that way. I'll wait.
  - kreetx 9y ago
    I think he folded the comment tree.
dbatten 9y ago
Obvious corollary: if you're lucky enough to love doing something useful that most people would hate, you're likely well situated to get paid a lot for doing that thing.
- maxxxxx 9y ago
  I'd say this is true for a lot of jobs like CEO of a big company, corporate lawyer or even being politician (who would want to go through the grueling campaigning necessary to run for president?). Most people don't want to put in the hard work to of these jobs. Myself included. I am not saying that this justifies the crazy high pay of CEOs but it's a tough job.
  - mstade 9y ago
    Most CEOs also don’t get crazy high pay, only the ones you hear about.
    - zeth___ 9y ago
      [[citation needed]]
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
    - neogodless 9y ago
      Please define "crazy high pay." http://time.com/money/4790237/ceo-pay-salary-compensation-increase/ http://time.com/money/4790237/ceo-pay-salary-compensation-in... > American CEOs got an 8.5-percent raise last year, taking in a median of $11.5 million in salary, stock, and other compensation.
- bonniemuffin 9y ago
  Dirty Jobs is full of great examples of people who've found their niche in this category of jobs, and are probably quite well compensated for it.
- Bartweiss 9y ago
  Maybe the best advice this article could have given would be to look for those careers. Taking the job with the most money is reasonable, taking the job job you love most is reasonable, but if we're talking economics then the comparative advantage is in finding the job you like most relative to everyone else. On which note, I don't think it's an accident that some subdomains of programming have really happy people making good money. Sure, it's work they love, but optimizing compilers or whatever else appeals to few enough people that it's a great fit for anyone who does like it.
  - ghaff 9y ago
    In general, in engineering, getting very good at some obscure specialty (which is highly valued and you like well enough) is pretty good advice in general. Of course, pick wrong--or don't be flexible enough--and you're the world's performance expert in some computer architecture that's now obsolete or the Y2K expert in 2001.
JumpCrisscross 9y ago
Commercially-minded industrialists regularly put artisans, who love their crafts, out of work by driving down costs. Some of the things those who love their work do aren’t meaningful to customers.
- crdoconnor 9y ago
  >by driving down costs More typically they do it by monopolizing distribution, not driving down costs, although craft beer probably will not do well in a protracted recession as consumers tighten their belts.
qntty 9y ago
*unless the money is very good
- LandR 9y ago
  I disagree. I feel chasing money is a sure fire way to end up miserable. If you don't get there, you were doing something that was making you unhappy for nothing. If you do get their and up rich, you might find the money doesn't really bring you what you were after anyway. It seems a dangerous gamble.
  - enkiv2 9y ago
    Yeah. The article kind of bothered me by assuming that its reader is trying to maximize profit, rather than maximize happiness with a sustainable income. I love to code. I code for a living. If UBI was established, I would quit my job and code for free, because being told what to do is inherently frustrating.
  - moate 9y ago
    "Money can't buy you happiness, but broke can't buy nothing".
CalRobert 9y ago
Very well put. tl;dr - any job that has teenagers dreaming of doing it is almost definitely a terrible career choice. You'll be trying to get paid for a job that others want to do for free. Of course, they tell themselves it's only until the get established, but there's always another crop of chumps finishing school. I say this as the spouse of someone who dreamed of working in museums and is now bitterly disappointed at how museums/heritage/academia treat its people. Sure, they could have known ahead of time, but we all make mistakes. Funny enough, I have a pretty good gig at a video game company at the moment, but doing very not-video-game specific things. To be honest you can really tell that the people whose skills are focused on Unity and C# are more stressed out than the ones who know Python and AWS and can pretty much walk in to another job.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- su8898 9y ago
  Sorry got confused at the C#/Unity part. Did you mean Unity and C# are terrible career choices at the moment as opposed to Python/AWS?
  - brad0 9y ago
    I assumed he did. AWS is transferable to most fields in tech these days. Unity is niche to video games. C# isn’t used in as many fields as python for sure.
    - CalRobert 9y ago
      Exactly - thanks for writing it for me. If you're a "Unity Developer" you're pretty much restricted to games, a volatile and difficult industry.
      - justinhj 9y ago
        In my experience as a game developer over 25 years, it’s volatile for businesses but not for individuals, as long as your skills are in demand
matte_black 9y ago
TL;DR: The more lovable a job is, the more ripe it is for taking advantage of those who want to do it.
ghaff 9y ago
The other somewhat related corollary is that a lot of things you find are fun as a hobby may not be so engaging as a full-time job--especially if you're not sufficiently talented/lucky to be able to mostly do the job on your terms.
- tonyedgecombe 9y ago
  Yes, doing things for money does have a tendency to suck the joy out of those things.
  - ghaff 9y ago
    It's not so much about doing things for money. If you want to pay me for whatever hobbies I would pursue in any case, I'll be happy to tell you where to deposit the checks. Rather, it's that what I want to do even without being paid for it is probably different from what someone will pay me to do. I like doing photography and used to do it somewhat more seriously (and did make beer money off of it in school which was nice). But I had no illusions that I was likely to become a well-known globe-trotting nature or documentary photographer--or perhaps that I would even enjoy that as a full-time profession.
henrik_w 9y ago
Counter point: I love programming, but it also pays very well (due to value it creates, and supply/demand for programmers)
- cix_pkez 9y ago
  The programming I love and web development are very different things. Sadly, the latter is the most prevalent.
  - SketchySeaBeast 9y ago
    That's a super important clarification. I'm sure a lot of us loved algorithm optimizations and solving fun problems, but for the majority of us programming devolves down to "Modify a CRUD website template for the next 20-35 years".
    - meritt 9y ago
      And that desire to work on algorithm optimizations and solving fun problems is why we have such utterly complex web development toolchains today.
      - cix_pkez 9y ago
        I actually agree totally, but perhaps not for your intended reason. I have a hunch that the clear syntax and relative simplicity of web programming is what drives a certain kind of developer to long for complexity and turn something simple into this: `user.public? && (current_user.try(:test) ? user.test? : !user.test?)`
        SketchySeaBeast 9y ago
        Yeah, that's something that a developer learns better as he gains experience, but as a younger dev I know that I craved complexity for complexities sake, and to prove that I COULD work with complexity. I've since grown out of that.
xexers 9y ago
Is this article a total rip off of a reddit thread from yesterday? https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/8aqs7q/whats_a_job_that_pays_way_less_than_people_think/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/8aqs7q/whats_a_j... EDIT: I'm an idiot. The author mentions this fact. I should really read the full article.
- bjterry 9y ago
  It is a response to it, which I, the author, call out in the 7th paragraph.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- my_username_is_ 9y ago
  It's not as much of a 'rip off' as a commentary on it. It specifically mentions the AskReddit thread in the article.
andrewl 9y ago
Hi make some good points, although he also refers to the profession of teaching as prestigious, which it is not. At least not in the United States, unfortunately.
- tomhoward 9y ago
  Perhaps not prestigious, but appreciated ("devoting your life to helping kids... that's wonderful!"), which must be a major factor that keeps people doing it, given the modest remuneration and difficulty/stress of the work (along with nursing and other welfare work).
sakabaro 9y ago
> Chefs / Pastry Chefs (Delightful): Lots of people love cooking or baking (including me!) and they think that means that it would be a good career. Unfortunately, based on the basic principles of supply and demand, this leads to more people wanting to be chefs than one would see if it didn’t look so fun. Too many cooks spoil the market for restaurant labor. I am not sure if the author ever talked to a cook or a baker.
- monodeldiablo 9y ago
  Or a pilot, or anybody who works in television, or cancer researchers, or professors, or...
- bjterry 9y ago
  You have a point (I'm the author). When I was young I had a few friends who were line cooks at Olive Garden, and they didn't believe they were going to have a great career staying in that kind of work. It was just a job that they were able to get at an entry-level without any training. But I also have multiple friends and family members who went to culinary school in hopes of becoming chefs at their own restaurants. Mostly this has not turned out very well financially for them. For the same amount of work if they had gone to trade school, any of them could have a job that pays well. Note this does not mean they'd be happier.
  - moate 9y ago
    First mistake: going to culinary school with the hopes of being a chef at their own restaurant. I'm 3rd+ generation restaurant worker. Watch my mom go bankrupt twice opening her own places. Restaurants are a completely misunderstood industry because too many people forget it's a business first and "cooking with love" second. Quick story: My best friend in culinary school already had a BA in education when she got into the field. She went the hotel route, got a masters in Hospitality and now manages food/bev at a large Boston hospital. She loves food and cooking, but she also realizes that it's a job first and that she can always do her fun stuff at home. Working as a cook/chef can be a great career, but most people have no clue what the industry actually looks like when they start to gravitate towards it. I don't think this is unique to that industry, just something most career chefs recognize as part of what keeps the industry full of new bright eyed idiots to burn out after a few months and pay low wages.
Dotnaught 9y ago
Rewriting the headline as an exhortation rather than a warning we get: For money, do what others hate. But you can do what others love and get compensated if you're better than amateurs (those who labor for love) and in an industry where your customers can discern quality, care about it, and can afford it.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
geofft 9y ago
Happiness isn't a fungible commodity. It's not a store of value. No job can offer me happiness, just the possibility of happiness. When I go home, any unrealized happiness from that day is gone. Any unspent money, however, goes into my savings account. If I work a well-paying tech job, I can save enough money that I don't have to go in to any job. My alternative isn't another job; it's no job at all. Then, if I love software engineering, I can engineer software on my own free of the constraints of the market. That saved money also provides potential happiness, probably in a more reliable way. > Consider the job that you would do if you could no longer do your current work, or the job that would bring the most delight to your daily life. Does that job pay less? For most people, the answer to that question is also yes. These first two are basically three different questions. If I could no longer do my current job, I'd hunt for similar jobs that pay more. If I could no longer do this type of work, it wouldn't be a good thing, and I'd try to find another high-paying career I'd be decent at. The job that would bring the most delight to my daily life isn't a job at all, and it's very weird to weave in the capitalistic assumption that life is determined by a job without also accepting the truth that in a capitalist society, money is actually the best way to bring yourself delight.
- ghaff 9y ago
  There's advice that I think served me well at a point where I was at least mulling trying to make a probably not very well paying/not very stable job out of my hobby. Namely that, if you have the skills and background to get a well-paying day job that gives you a lot of latitude to pursue hobbies on your own terms that's a pretty good option. Which is pretty much what I've done. Stop paying me tomorrow? Good luck with that even if I didn't need the paycheck. But I enjoy it well enough and have plenty of time for other activities. Would I prefer even more time? Yes. But the status quo is a reasonable one for me.
  - geofft 9y ago
    Right. I'm speaking somewhat from experience: the last two times I switched jobs, I took about six months off between them and lived off savings, enjoying the process of just having the full day to do whatever I wanted (sometimes writing code, sometimes just reading or playing video games or whatever). No job can offer that, and I can do this a lot more easily than I can negotiate even a part-time tech job. I am also as happy with my day job as with any other day job I can imagine, and I've sought out high-paying day jobs on purpose.
samastur 9y ago
I take issue with "The reason for both of these is because delightfulness is part of what you are being paid." Unless you would do your current job even you weren't paid at all, then that is not really true. What we do, is negotiate the balance between discomfort and money. It might be a good deal for you personally, but you are still giving up some satisfaction.
jimmies 9y ago
My rule of thumb is any job that has any "star" the general public knows and cheer for, don't bet your life's happiness on it. The more glamorous you see the star, the worse off the average person is/the more improbable an average person can make it. For example, rock star, movie star, star chef, star youtuber, star blogger, star athlete, star politician, star Hacker news story, star redditor, star 4chan memer, etc. I haven't heard of a star lawyer, or star doctor, or star programmer that the general public knows.
- erehweb 9y ago
  Johnnie Cochran was a star lawyer, and you could make a case for Gloria Allred.
- wgerard 9y ago
  > I haven't heard of a star lawyer, or star doctor, or star programmer that the general public know. Ehh, I'm not sure I would agree with that. Sure, for the most part the really successful ones pivot to become something else (typically to become politicians, media personalities, and/or CEOs), but their original profession remains a core part of their identity. Off the top of my head, most people (older than 25, say) know who Johnnie Cochran was. Ben Carson was pretty famous even before he entered politics. And despite whatever he is now, Zuckerberg is still pretty much the poster boy for programmer-turned-CEO. Heh, there's an entire movie about what a star programmer he was.
  - jimmies 9y ago
    There is nothing super contradictory about Zuck that way... Zuckerberg isn't rich and famous because he is good at programming. He is because he created a successful social network called Facebook. He doesn't make money because he programs now. He is rich because he is good at being a CEO of Facebook, and neither the CEO job nor a successful social network is easy to get. I don't think Zuck would list his job as being a programmer. He lists his job as being a CEO. Same as Taylor Swift lists her job as being a singer/songwriter. When someone dreams to create a successful social network and become a CEO like Zuck, it's just as delusional as writing a hit song and becoming a music star like Swift.
replicatorblog 9y ago
The conflation of job types in this piece undercuts its thesis, which I think it pretty good advice. Seeking out a career in a kitchen, the entertainment business or any other "tournament profession" is high-risk and likely to leave you with few skills the market will reward. On the other hand, getting a Ph.D. in life sciences seems like a pretty fool-proof path to the upper-middle class. Sure, you may not be a Nobel Prize winner, but I'd imagine in the worst case, you'd be pretty employable by pharma companies. The other examples are a bit weirder. The people who love to fly recreationally typically aren't the ones manning the red-eye, or ferrying air freight from Shenzen. In most cases, they're "Post-economic" if they can afford to learn. Likewise, I'm not sure anyone goes into the forest service for money. Anyway, the author makes a good point, but muddles it with poor examples.
- abnry 9y ago
  An example I was waiting for him to list was graphic designer/artist. It's a sort of meme to be asked to do things "for exposure". The reason that is a thing is because many people are willing to design for free because many, many people love being artistic.
  - ghaff 9y ago
    >people are willing to design for free because many, many people love being artistic. That's part of it. But a lot of people (on both sides) are also just naive about the value of said exposure. When I was a consultant I was asked for freebies all the time. Sometimes speaking at a conference was legitimate for the "portfolio" but it was mostly just asking me to work for free.
- bjterry 9y ago
  I think if I were writing this piece from whole cloth, I would use different examples. It was mostly a response to the reddit post so I was hoping to resolve confusion for my friends who had read that. There is a lot more that could be said on this topic, particularly markets with winner-take-most dynamics or positional elements, markets that are outside equilibrium, and markets with rent-seeking behaviors.
- 9y ago
mattnewport 9y ago
If it's true that non monetary compensation replaces monetary compensation for these type of jobs then it's only good advice to not do them if that non monetary compensation is worth less to you than the average person doing those jobs. If that's all that was going on this advice wouldn't make sense unless you were motivated by money over prestige and job satisfaction to an atypical degree. What's going on with these type of jobs is actually mostly just simple supply and demand. Supply of labor at a given price is increased by the perceived desirability of the work but that ignores both the demand side and the qualifications / requirements on the job. These help explain the examples that don't fit the overly simplified story in the article. Brad Pitt or Gordon Ramsay for example do quite well for monetary compensation in fields listed here because they are not easily substitutable. Doctors are still quite well paid despite the prestige and "helping people" job satisfaction because supply is restricted by licensing requirements.
draw_down 9y ago
Good advice if you have family money to fall back on or are independently wealthy. The rest of us need to work for money, philistines that we are.
3pt14159 9y ago
I was surprised that the article didn't cover counter examples: Jobs with high pay to make up for their low delightfulness, low(ish) education level, and low prestige. 1. Mining engineer or technician in a remote region like Northern Canada. 2. Electrician, plumber, or other skilled trade for the oil industry. 3. Real estate agent in a reasonably well off area. Some may argue that this isn't low prestige, but I'd counter that jobs where men have to get hair plugs to stay competitive as they age isn't high prestige even if the work itself is genteel. 4. Taking clothes off for money (stripping, porn, prostitution, etc).
- mythrwy 9y ago
  Some people take off clothes for love. This doesn't seem to reduce the demand for people doing the same for money. Hence it appears to be a matter of quality and demand somewhat negating the premise of the article.
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago
  Software engineer? High(ish) education level, high(ish) prestige. The delightfulness varies from job to job, though...
moate 9y ago
The second anything becomes a job, it loses some of what makes it enjoyable. When you "have" to go do something, even though you're not in the mood/sick/whatever it's not fun anymore. The advantage people with hobbies have, is that then can pause their hobby at any time and come back to it when they feel like it. If it's your job, you've got to be there doing it. Everyone loves sex, but most people don't want to be in porn. The job that I want has nothing to do with what I'm doing at the job. It's a collection of things that make my lifestyle of choice possible, and job requirements that allow me to feel comfortable that I'm performing well and not likely to get fired. At the same time, I understand there's going to be plenty of times where I'm competing with some Ash Ketchum type (to be, the very best, like no one ever was) who REALLY cares about the job on a different level. That's fine. If they want the eager guy, they'll take him. If they think my skills work better, they'll pick me. Get a marketable set of skills, truly understand what they are, and then you'll be fine with jobs.
ksk 9y ago
A counter (somewhat) : http://yosefk.com/blog/fun-wont-get-it-done.html http://yosefk.com/blog/fun-wont-get-it-done.html Its not important, but I happen to agree with most of it.. :)

90 points by bjterry 9y ago

> Consider the work you do. If you love your job, and particularly if you love that type of work more than anyone else you work with, would you keep doing it for a modest pay cut? Really think about the answer to this question. I’ll wait. When the writer of a piece tells me what to do like this, my first instinct is actually to close the tab.

liveoneggs 9y ago
Consider why you feel that way. I'll wait.
- kreetx 9y ago
  I think he folded the comment tree.

dbatten 9y ago

Obvious corollary: if you're lucky enough to love doing something useful that most people would hate, you're likely well situated to get paid a lot for doing that thing.

maxxxxx 9y ago
I'd say this is true for a lot of jobs like CEO of a big company, corporate lawyer or even being politician (who would want to go through the grueling campaigning necessary to run for president?). Most people don't want to put in the hard work to of these jobs. Myself included. I am not saying that this justifies the crazy high pay of CEOs but it's a tough job.
- mstade 9y ago
  Most CEOs also don’t get crazy high pay, only the ones you hear about.
  - zeth___ 9y ago
    [[citation needed]]
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  - neogodless 9y ago
    Please define "crazy high pay." http://time.com/money/4790237/ceo-pay-salary-compensation-increase/ http://time.com/money/4790237/ceo-pay-salary-compensation-in... > American CEOs got an 8.5-percent raise last year, taking in a median of $11.5 million in salary, stock, and other compensation.
bonniemuffin 9y ago
Dirty Jobs is full of great examples of people who've found their niche in this category of jobs, and are probably quite well compensated for it.
Bartweiss 9y ago
Maybe the best advice this article could have given would be to look for those careers. Taking the job with the most money is reasonable, taking the job job you love most is reasonable, but if we're talking economics then the comparative advantage is in finding the job you like most relative to everyone else. On which note, I don't think it's an accident that some subdomains of programming have really happy people making good money. Sure, it's work they love, but optimizing compilers or whatever else appeals to few enough people that it's a great fit for anyone who does like it.
- ghaff 9y ago
  In general, in engineering, getting very good at some obscure specialty (which is highly valued and you like well enough) is pretty good advice in general. Of course, pick wrong--or don't be flexible enough--and you're the world's performance expert in some computer architecture that's now obsolete or the Y2K expert in 2001.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago

Commercially-minded industrialists regularly put artisans, who love their crafts, out of work by driving down costs. Some of the things those who love their work do aren’t meaningful to customers.

crdoconnor 9y ago
>by driving down costs More typically they do it by monopolizing distribution, not driving down costs, although craft beer probably will not do well in a protracted recession as consumers tighten their belts.

qntty 9y ago

*unless the money is very good

LandR 9y ago
I disagree. I feel chasing money is a sure fire way to end up miserable. If you don't get there, you were doing something that was making you unhappy for nothing. If you do get their and up rich, you might find the money doesn't really bring you what you were after anyway. It seems a dangerous gamble.
- enkiv2 9y ago
  Yeah. The article kind of bothered me by assuming that its reader is trying to maximize profit, rather than maximize happiness with a sustainable income. I love to code. I code for a living. If UBI was established, I would quit my job and code for free, because being told what to do is inherently frustrating.
- moate 9y ago
  "Money can't buy you happiness, but broke can't buy nothing".

CalRobert 9y ago

Very well put. tl;dr - any job that has teenagers dreaming of doing it is almost definitely a terrible career choice. You'll be trying to get paid for a job that others want to do for free. Of course, they tell themselves it's only until the get established, but there's always another crop of chumps finishing school. I say this as the spouse of someone who dreamed of working in museums and is now bitterly disappointed at how museums/heritage/academia treat its people. Sure, they could have known ahead of time, but we all make mistakes. Funny enough, I have a pretty good gig at a video game company at the moment, but doing very not-video-game specific things. To be honest you can really tell that the people whose skills are focused on Unity and C# are more stressed out than the ones who know Python and AWS and can pretty much walk in to another job.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
su8898 9y ago
Sorry got confused at the C#/Unity part. Did you mean Unity and C# are terrible career choices at the moment as opposed to Python/AWS?
- brad0 9y ago
  I assumed he did. AWS is transferable to most fields in tech these days. Unity is niche to video games. C# isn’t used in as many fields as python for sure.
  - CalRobert 9y ago
    Exactly - thanks for writing it for me. If you're a "Unity Developer" you're pretty much restricted to games, a volatile and difficult industry.
    - justinhj 9y ago
      In my experience as a game developer over 25 years, it’s volatile for businesses but not for individuals, as long as your skills are in demand

matte_black 9y ago

TL;DR: The more lovable a job is, the more ripe it is for taking advantage of those who want to do it.

ghaff 9y ago

The other somewhat related corollary is that a lot of things you find are fun as a hobby may not be so engaging as a full-time job--especially if you're not sufficiently talented/lucky to be able to mostly do the job on your terms.

tonyedgecombe 9y ago
Yes, doing things for money does have a tendency to suck the joy out of those things.
- ghaff 9y ago
  It's not so much about doing things for money. If you want to pay me for whatever hobbies I would pursue in any case, I'll be happy to tell you where to deposit the checks. Rather, it's that what I want to do even without being paid for it is probably different from what someone will pay me to do. I like doing photography and used to do it somewhat more seriously (and did make beer money off of it in school which was nice). But I had no illusions that I was likely to become a well-known globe-trotting nature or documentary photographer--or perhaps that I would even enjoy that as a full-time profession.

henrik_w 9y ago

Counter point: I love programming, but it also pays very well (due to value it creates, and supply/demand for programmers)

cix_pkez 9y ago
The programming I love and web development are very different things. Sadly, the latter is the most prevalent.
- SketchySeaBeast 9y ago
  That's a super important clarification. I'm sure a lot of us loved algorithm optimizations and solving fun problems, but for the majority of us programming devolves down to "Modify a CRUD website template for the next 20-35 years".
  - meritt 9y ago
    And that desire to work on algorithm optimizations and solving fun problems is why we have such utterly complex web development toolchains today.
    - cix_pkez 9y ago
      I actually agree totally, but perhaps not for your intended reason. I have a hunch that the clear syntax and relative simplicity of web programming is what drives a certain kind of developer to long for complexity and turn something simple into this: `user.public? && (current_user.try(:test) ? user.test? : !user.test?)`
      - SketchySeaBeast 9y ago
        Yeah, that's something that a developer learns better as he gains experience, but as a younger dev I know that I craved complexity for complexities sake, and to prove that I COULD work with complexity. I've since grown out of that.

xexers 9y ago

Is this article a total rip off of a reddit thread from yesterday? https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/8aqs7q/whats_a_job_that_pays_way_less_than_people_think/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/8aqs7q/whats_a_j... EDIT: I'm an idiot. The author mentions this fact. I should really read the full article.

bjterry 9y ago
It is a response to it, which I, the author, call out in the 7th paragraph.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
my_username_is_ 9y ago
It's not as much of a 'rip off' as a commentary on it. It specifically mentions the AskReddit thread in the article.

andrewl 9y ago

Hi make some good points, although he also refers to the profession of teaching as prestigious, which it is not. At least not in the United States, unfortunately.

tomhoward 9y ago
Perhaps not prestigious, but appreciated ("devoting your life to helping kids... that's wonderful!"), which must be a major factor that keeps people doing it, given the modest remuneration and difficulty/stress of the work (along with nursing and other welfare work).

sakabaro 9y ago

> Chefs / Pastry Chefs (Delightful): Lots of people love cooking or baking (including me!) and they think that means that it would be a good career. Unfortunately, based on the basic principles of supply and demand, this leads to more people wanting to be chefs than one would see if it didn’t look so fun. Too many cooks spoil the market for restaurant labor. I am not sure if the author ever talked to a cook or a baker.

monodeldiablo 9y ago
Or a pilot, or anybody who works in television, or cancer researchers, or professors, or...
bjterry 9y ago
You have a point (I'm the author). When I was young I had a few friends who were line cooks at Olive Garden, and they didn't believe they were going to have a great career staying in that kind of work. It was just a job that they were able to get at an entry-level without any training. But I also have multiple friends and family members who went to culinary school in hopes of becoming chefs at their own restaurants. Mostly this has not turned out very well financially for them. For the same amount of work if they had gone to trade school, any of them could have a job that pays well. Note this does not mean they'd be happier.
- moate 9y ago
  First mistake: going to culinary school with the hopes of being a chef at their own restaurant. I'm 3rd+ generation restaurant worker. Watch my mom go bankrupt twice opening her own places. Restaurants are a completely misunderstood industry because too many people forget it's a business first and "cooking with love" second. Quick story: My best friend in culinary school already had a BA in education when she got into the field. She went the hotel route, got a masters in Hospitality and now manages food/bev at a large Boston hospital. She loves food and cooking, but she also realizes that it's a job first and that she can always do her fun stuff at home. Working as a cook/chef can be a great career, but most people have no clue what the industry actually looks like when they start to gravitate towards it. I don't think this is unique to that industry, just something most career chefs recognize as part of what keeps the industry full of new bright eyed idiots to burn out after a few months and pay low wages.

Dotnaught 9y ago

Rewriting the headline as an exhortation rather than a warning we get: For money, do what others hate. But you can do what others love and get compensated if you're better than amateurs (those who labor for love) and in an industry where your customers can discern quality, care about it, and can afford it.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

geofft 9y ago

Happiness isn't a fungible commodity. It's not a store of value. No job can offer me happiness, just the possibility of happiness. When I go home, any unrealized happiness from that day is gone. Any unspent money, however, goes into my savings account. If I work a well-paying tech job, I can save enough money that I don't have to go in to any job. My alternative isn't another job; it's no job at all. Then, if I love software engineering, I can engineer software on my own free of the constraints of the market. That saved money also provides potential happiness, probably in a more reliable way. > Consider the job that you would do if you could no longer do your current work, or the job that would bring the most delight to your daily life. Does that job pay less? For most people, the answer to that question is also yes. These first two are basically three different questions. If I could no longer do my current job, I'd hunt for similar jobs that pay more. If I could no longer do this type of work, it wouldn't be a good thing, and I'd try to find another high-paying career I'd be decent at. The job that would bring the most delight to my daily life isn't a job at all, and it's very weird to weave in the capitalistic assumption that life is determined by a job without also accepting the truth that in a capitalist society, money is actually the best way to bring yourself delight.

ghaff 9y ago
There's advice that I think served me well at a point where I was at least mulling trying to make a probably not very well paying/not very stable job out of my hobby. Namely that, if you have the skills and background to get a well-paying day job that gives you a lot of latitude to pursue hobbies on your own terms that's a pretty good option. Which is pretty much what I've done. Stop paying me tomorrow? Good luck with that even if I didn't need the paycheck. But I enjoy it well enough and have plenty of time for other activities. Would I prefer even more time? Yes. But the status quo is a reasonable one for me.
- geofft 9y ago
  Right. I'm speaking somewhat from experience: the last two times I switched jobs, I took about six months off between them and lived off savings, enjoying the process of just having the full day to do whatever I wanted (sometimes writing code, sometimes just reading or playing video games or whatever). No job can offer that, and I can do this a lot more easily than I can negotiate even a part-time tech job. I am also as happy with my day job as with any other day job I can imagine, and I've sought out high-paying day jobs on purpose.

samastur 9y ago

I take issue with "The reason for both of these is because delightfulness is part of what you are being paid." Unless you would do your current job even you weren't paid at all, then that is not really true. What we do, is negotiate the balance between discomfort and money. It might be a good deal for you personally, but you are still giving up some satisfaction.

jimmies 9y ago

My rule of thumb is any job that has any "star" the general public knows and cheer for, don't bet your life's happiness on it. The more glamorous you see the star, the worse off the average person is/the more improbable an average person can make it. For example, rock star, movie star, star chef, star youtuber, star blogger, star athlete, star politician, star Hacker news story, star redditor, star 4chan memer, etc. I haven't heard of a star lawyer, or star doctor, or star programmer that the general public knows.

erehweb 9y ago
Johnnie Cochran was a star lawyer, and you could make a case for Gloria Allred.
wgerard 9y ago
> I haven't heard of a star lawyer, or star doctor, or star programmer that the general public know. Ehh, I'm not sure I would agree with that. Sure, for the most part the really successful ones pivot to become something else (typically to become politicians, media personalities, and/or CEOs), but their original profession remains a core part of their identity. Off the top of my head, most people (older than 25, say) know who Johnnie Cochran was. Ben Carson was pretty famous even before he entered politics. And despite whatever he is now, Zuckerberg is still pretty much the poster boy for programmer-turned-CEO. Heh, there's an entire movie about what a star programmer he was.
- jimmies 9y ago
  There is nothing super contradictory about Zuck that way... Zuckerberg isn't rich and famous because he is good at programming. He is because he created a successful social network called Facebook. He doesn't make money because he programs now. He is rich because he is good at being a CEO of Facebook, and neither the CEO job nor a successful social network is easy to get. I don't think Zuck would list his job as being a programmer. He lists his job as being a CEO. Same as Taylor Swift lists her job as being a singer/songwriter. When someone dreams to create a successful social network and become a CEO like Zuck, it's just as delusional as writing a hit song and becoming a music star like Swift.

replicatorblog 9y ago

The conflation of job types in this piece undercuts its thesis, which I think it pretty good advice. Seeking out a career in a kitchen, the entertainment business or any other "tournament profession" is high-risk and likely to leave you with few skills the market will reward. On the other hand, getting a Ph.D. in life sciences seems like a pretty fool-proof path to the upper-middle class. Sure, you may not be a Nobel Prize winner, but I'd imagine in the worst case, you'd be pretty employable by pharma companies. The other examples are a bit weirder. The people who love to fly recreationally typically aren't the ones manning the red-eye, or ferrying air freight from Shenzen. In most cases, they're "Post-economic" if they can afford to learn. Likewise, I'm not sure anyone goes into the forest service for money. Anyway, the author makes a good point, but muddles it with poor examples.

abnry 9y ago
An example I was waiting for him to list was graphic designer/artist. It's a sort of meme to be asked to do things "for exposure". The reason that is a thing is because many people are willing to design for free because many, many people love being artistic.
- ghaff 9y ago
  >people are willing to design for free because many, many people love being artistic. That's part of it. But a lot of people (on both sides) are also just naive about the value of said exposure. When I was a consultant I was asked for freebies all the time. Sometimes speaking at a conference was legitimate for the "portfolio" but it was mostly just asking me to work for free.
bjterry 9y ago
I think if I were writing this piece from whole cloth, I would use different examples. It was mostly a response to the reddit post so I was hoping to resolve confusion for my friends who had read that. There is a lot more that could be said on this topic, particularly markets with winner-take-most dynamics or positional elements, markets that are outside equilibrium, and markets with rent-seeking behaviors.
9y ago

mattnewport 9y ago

If it's true that non monetary compensation replaces monetary compensation for these type of jobs then it's only good advice to not do them if that non monetary compensation is worth less to you than the average person doing those jobs. If that's all that was going on this advice wouldn't make sense unless you were motivated by money over prestige and job satisfaction to an atypical degree. What's going on with these type of jobs is actually mostly just simple supply and demand. Supply of labor at a given price is increased by the perceived desirability of the work but that ignores both the demand side and the qualifications / requirements on the job. These help explain the examples that don't fit the overly simplified story in the article. Brad Pitt or Gordon Ramsay for example do quite well for monetary compensation in fields listed here because they are not easily substitutable. Doctors are still quite well paid despite the prestige and "helping people" job satisfaction because supply is restricted by licensing requirements.

draw_down 9y ago

Good advice if you have family money to fall back on or are independently wealthy. The rest of us need to work for money, philistines that we are.

3pt14159 9y ago

I was surprised that the article didn't cover counter examples: Jobs with high pay to make up for their low delightfulness, low(ish) education level, and low prestige. 1. Mining engineer or technician in a remote region like Northern Canada. 2. Electrician, plumber, or other skilled trade for the oil industry. 3. Real estate agent in a reasonably well off area. Some may argue that this isn't low prestige, but I'd counter that jobs where men have to get hair plugs to stay competitive as they age isn't high prestige even if the work itself is genteel. 4. Taking clothes off for money (stripping, porn, prostitution, etc).

mythrwy 9y ago
Some people take off clothes for love. This doesn't seem to reduce the demand for people doing the same for money. Hence it appears to be a matter of quality and demand somewhat negating the premise of the article.
AnimalMuppet 9y ago
Software engineer? High(ish) education level, high(ish) prestige. The delightfulness varies from job to job, though...

moate 9y ago

The second anything becomes a job, it loses some of what makes it enjoyable. When you "have" to go do something, even though you're not in the mood/sick/whatever it's not fun anymore. The advantage people with hobbies have, is that then can pause their hobby at any time and come back to it when they feel like it. If it's your job, you've got to be there doing it. Everyone loves sex, but most people don't want to be in porn. The job that I want has nothing to do with what I'm doing at the job. It's a collection of things that make my lifestyle of choice possible, and job requirements that allow me to feel comfortable that I'm performing well and not likely to get fired. At the same time, I understand there's going to be plenty of times where I'm competing with some Ash Ketchum type (to be, the very best, like no one ever was) who REALLY cares about the job on a different level. That's fine. If they want the eager guy, they'll take him. If they think my skills work better, they'll pick me. Get a marketable set of skills, truly understand what they are, and then you'll be fine with jobs.

ksk 9y ago

A counter (somewhat) : http://yosefk.com/blog/fun-wont-get-it-done.html http://yosefk.com/blog/fun-wont-get-it-done.html Its not important, but I happen to agree with most of it.. :)