7 ms·

I your work is not producing anything valuable for other people it's void and you will get bored pretty fast, it's a human nature. If it does you can always fin

I your work is not producing anything valuable for other people it's void and you will get bored pretty fast, it's a human nature. If it does you can always find a way to monetize it as people need it and ready to share their wealth for something they need. No, it doesn't have to be a work "for a company", but if you can't "make money off of this" it probably means your "work" is only relevant to you, or somebody else will "make money off of this" using what you have created. It's how society works, and we are social animals.

wrs 4y ago
By this argument, hobbies do not exist.
- FooBarWidget 4y ago
  Hobbies are relevant personally. Fits his definition.
  - namarie 4y ago
    Hobbies aren't necessarily only relevant to oneself, so no, they don't fit. Running a marathon can be a hobby, and lots of people compete in those together.
    - FooBarWidget 4y ago
      Not necessarily, but more often so than not. Even the competitions that you mention are only valuable to other hobbyists, and only in so far people's free times allow. Non-hobbyists are not likely to pay much to see those competitions. And when free time runs out, those hobbies are amongst the first things to go.
jamilton 4y ago
People who have enough wealth to not work for a living seem to manage their boredom pretty well.
- ativzzz 4y ago
  People who have earned enough wealth to not for a living do, though those who've worked hard enough to do that typically don't have much in their life but work. People who simply have enough wealth to not have to work are on a hedonistic treadmill most of the time
  - namarie 4y ago
    However, the previous argument was about boredom, not about being "on a hedonistic treadmill", which sounds pretty vague, not to mention judgmental.
- vc8f6vVV 4y ago
  You think so? Have you been in that position? I was. It's not what you think it is. Also unless you want to spend your wealth pretty fast (money has a half-life time like radioactive elements, doesn't depend on quantity) you have to work to keep your wealth, and it's not less nerve-racking than spending your 8 hours at work and forgetting it until next morning.
  - jamilton 4y ago
    No, I haven't been, just know some people who are. I don't understand what you're referring to. Where was your money going? I understand you still have expenses when you aren't working, but the expenses don't scale up on their own.
jwagenet 4y ago
> I your work is not producing anything valuable for other people it's void and you will get bored pretty fast, it's a human nature I think this is plain wrong. There are plenty of pursuits that are “work” on the mental or physical side, but do not produce economic value. Developing artistry by mastering a medium or an instrument, climbing mountains, running ultra marathons, tending to a garden or bonsai, modifying a vehicle… These are things could produce economic or social credit, but are largely solo “work” which can be (and often is) self satisfying without external motivation.
- danShumway 4y ago
  Good to bring up. People are very attached to the idea that humans don't want to master things unless they're the best at them, and I feel like that philosophy was pretty solidly disproved right about the time that video games were invented. People master skills in non-competitive, solo settings. Learning a skill can be inherently satisfying on its own. Personal development is satisfying regardless of where the people around you are. Or at least, it should be. And it's also kind of a bad approach to value as well -- what I've found is that you can actually be pretty average at things and still provide a lot of value to the people around you, because of ignoring economies of scale and because of how much stuff there is to do in the world to begin with. There are software niches that are underserved where genuinely earnest programmers who look to help could do tremendous good even if they're kind of average/bad programmers. In fact, as one example that's close to HN, that's how the majority of Open Source programming happens. Open Source is not a meritocracy, it's a Do-ocracy, and a ton of the most valuable stuff is built by average programmers who look at underserved niches and say, "but what if there was a non-predatory solution for them?" A lot of what makes a good Open Source solution is just that it was built by someone who cares and who isn't trying to maneuver you into a predatory relationship. And sometimes it turns out that there are only a few people available in a niche that have both the resources to do that and the inclination. So they're not competing with anyone, they're just the people who happened to be available and willing to do the work.
- vc8f6vVV 4y ago
  I didn't say "economic value". Let's take "modifying a vehicle" as an example. Will you keep it in your garage guarding it from anybody's sight? Why are you doing it? What's coming to your mind? It's not always as straightforward as "economic value". You want somebody to look at your vehicle, you want to show it to somebody. What for? Keep it in your garage, you are doing it for your "mental side", aren't you? Money and economic value is not the only way of keeping society together, there are others. If you are showing your vehicle to somebody, you _are_ expecting something in return. Acquaintance? Friendship? Help when you need it? Continue yourself.
danShumway 4y ago
> If it does you can always find a way to monetize it as people need it and ready to share their wealth for something they need I disagree with this entirely. If this was true, the main question we would ask in a business is whether or not the output was useful. We don't ask that, we ask if it's "sustainable", "profitable", etc... We ask what the moat is around it. There are many useful things you can do that you won't be able to make money off of. I don't think it's uncommon either. Business is a great way of extracting value, I like business as a value extractor. But it's a specific way of extracting value. There are lots of things that are valuable that don't happen because it's not clear how they would be profitable. I mean, the simplest example here is you can build things for people who don't have money. It's not the only example, but it's a pretty obvious one. And you are not going to make a lot of money doing that unless you build a predatory or exploitative business. > or somebody else will "make money off of this" using what you have created I will also point out that if other people making money off of the things you do is a turn-off, it's not clear to me what value you think you're creating. I would argue that "meaningful work" very often benefits other people, that's... that's the point. If you're not giving people more value than you're taking from them, you probably aren't doing useful work. Are you arguing that it's less valuable if people are extracting extra value from the things we do?
- vc8f6vVV 4y ago
  Let's start from basics. People need to eat, so somebody needs to make food. Those people need tools. Somebody needs to make tools. Now for this to work they need to make extra food and exchange it for tools. This exchange has been in development since before human existed (look at wolves pack) -- never perfect, but kind of worked. So you want to make something you like and nobody needs? No problem, go for it. Where are you supposed to get food? Do you want a government to pay you the basic income? That means those who make food will give it to you for free, which means they won't get tools, which in turn means they won't be able to make that food. Oops. In a balanced system you are never "taking more than giving" or vice versa, because, as you know, price is a result of supply/demand. How do you know you Java library is worth a breakfast?
  - danShumway 4y ago

wrs 4y ago

By this argument, hobbies do not exist.

FooBarWidget 4y ago
Hobbies are relevant personally. Fits his definition.
- namarie 4y ago
  Hobbies aren't necessarily only relevant to oneself, so no, they don't fit. Running a marathon can be a hobby, and lots of people compete in those together.
  - FooBarWidget 4y ago
    Not necessarily, but more often so than not. Even the competitions that you mention are only valuable to other hobbyists, and only in so far people's free times allow. Non-hobbyists are not likely to pay much to see those competitions. And when free time runs out, those hobbies are amongst the first things to go.

jamilton 4y ago

People who have enough wealth to not work for a living seem to manage their boredom pretty well.

ativzzz 4y ago
People who have earned enough wealth to not for a living do, though those who've worked hard enough to do that typically don't have much in their life but work. People who simply have enough wealth to not have to work are on a hedonistic treadmill most of the time
- namarie 4y ago
  However, the previous argument was about boredom, not about being "on a hedonistic treadmill", which sounds pretty vague, not to mention judgmental.
vc8f6vVV 4y ago
You think so? Have you been in that position? I was. It's not what you think it is. Also unless you want to spend your wealth pretty fast (money has a half-life time like radioactive elements, doesn't depend on quantity) you have to work to keep your wealth, and it's not less nerve-racking than spending your 8 hours at work and forgetting it until next morning.
- jamilton 4y ago
  No, I haven't been, just know some people who are. I don't understand what you're referring to. Where was your money going? I understand you still have expenses when you aren't working, but the expenses don't scale up on their own.

jwagenet 4y ago

> I your work is not producing anything valuable for other people it's void and you will get bored pretty fast, it's a human nature I think this is plain wrong. There are plenty of pursuits that are “work” on the mental or physical side, but do not produce economic value. Developing artistry by mastering a medium or an instrument, climbing mountains, running ultra marathons, tending to a garden or bonsai, modifying a vehicle… These are things could produce economic or social credit, but are largely solo “work” which can be (and often is) self satisfying without external motivation.

danShumway 4y ago
Good to bring up. People are very attached to the idea that humans don't want to master things unless they're the best at them, and I feel like that philosophy was pretty solidly disproved right about the time that video games were invented. People master skills in non-competitive, solo settings. Learning a skill can be inherently satisfying on its own. Personal development is satisfying regardless of where the people around you are. Or at least, it should be. And it's also kind of a bad approach to value as well -- what I've found is that you can actually be pretty average at things and still provide a lot of value to the people around you, because of ignoring economies of scale and because of how much stuff there is to do in the world to begin with. There are software niches that are underserved where genuinely earnest programmers who look to help could do tremendous good even if they're kind of average/bad programmers. In fact, as one example that's close to HN, that's how the majority of Open Source programming happens. Open Source is not a meritocracy, it's a Do-ocracy, and a ton of the most valuable stuff is built by average programmers who look at underserved niches and say, "but what if there was a non-predatory solution for them?" A lot of what makes a good Open Source solution is just that it was built by someone who cares and who isn't trying to maneuver you into a predatory relationship. And sometimes it turns out that there are only a few people available in a niche that have both the resources to do that and the inclination. So they're not competing with anyone, they're just the people who happened to be available and willing to do the work.
vc8f6vVV 4y ago
I didn't say "economic value". Let's take "modifying a vehicle" as an example. Will you keep it in your garage guarding it from anybody's sight? Why are you doing it? What's coming to your mind? It's not always as straightforward as "economic value". You want somebody to look at your vehicle, you want to show it to somebody. What for? Keep it in your garage, you are doing it for your "mental side", aren't you? Money and economic value is not the only way of keeping society together, there are others. If you are showing your vehicle to somebody, you _are_ expecting something in return. Acquaintance? Friendship? Help when you need it? Continue yourself.

danShumway 4y ago

> If it does you can always find a way to monetize it as people need it and ready to share their wealth for something they need I disagree with this entirely. If this was true, the main question we would ask in a business is whether or not the output was useful. We don't ask that, we ask if it's "sustainable", "profitable", etc... We ask what the moat is around it. There are many useful things you can do that you won't be able to make money off of. I don't think it's uncommon either. Business is a great way of extracting value, I like business as a value extractor. But it's a specific way of extracting value. There are lots of things that are valuable that don't happen because it's not clear how they would be profitable. I mean, the simplest example here is you can build things for people who don't have money. It's not the only example, but it's a pretty obvious one. And you are not going to make a lot of money doing that unless you build a predatory or exploitative business. > or somebody else will "make money off of this" using what you have created I will also point out that if other people making money off of the things you do is a turn-off, it's not clear to me what value you think you're creating. I would argue that "meaningful work" very often benefits other people, that's... that's the point. If you're not giving people more value than you're taking from them, you probably aren't doing useful work. Are you arguing that it's less valuable if people are extracting extra value from the things we do?

vc8f6vVV 4y ago
Let's start from basics. People need to eat, so somebody needs to make food. Those people need tools. Somebody needs to make tools. Now for this to work they need to make extra food and exchange it for tools. This exchange has been in development since before human existed (look at wolves pack) -- never perfect, but kind of worked. So you want to make something you like and nobody needs? No problem, go for it. Where are you supposed to get food? Do you want a government to pay you the basic income? That means those who make food will give it to you for free, which means they won't get tools, which in turn means they won't be able to make that food. Oops. In a balanced system you are never "taking more than giving" or vice versa, because, as you know, price is a result of supply/demand. How do you know you Java library is worth a breakfast?
- danShumway 4y ago