yeah. i think it is probably healthier for most people to aim for work that is in relatively high demand, and hence has relatively good working conditions / pay

yeah. i think it is probably healthier for most people to aim for work that is in relatively high demand, and hence has relatively good working conditions / pay / career options, and then decouple the "do what you love" activities from work activities. to quote a programming blog, "work expands until it exceeds your capacity for stress". if you are in the luxurious position to do so (i.e. you have a few options for work and so can avoid working for horrible organisations with bosses or colleagues or clients that dont respect your free time), set up strong boundaries between your job and the rest of your life, and keep work contained. a few people are lucky enough to be able to make a decent living out of doing what they love, or are in the position of not needing to work, and are free to do what they love. for the vast majority of people this is not realistically achievable (this is not necessarily a question of ability, etc, lots of people are born into contexts where they have very little opportunity to develop their inherent potential) and they should not be judged by society from finding dignity in doing what is economically necessary to pay the bills. here's a slightly different but complementary perspective from an investment blog i follow: > Part of the problem is not having or developing an attitude of service. There is no shame in helping others. In one sense, compensation derives from how many people you help, times how valuable your contribution to that good or service is. > So, rather than “following your bliss,” the best work comes from enabling the bliss of others. http://alephblog.com/2015/07/25/the-school-of-money-first-grade/ http://alephblog.com/2015/07/25/the-school-of-money-first-gr...