> So you're basically agreeing with the original commenter? No. > I read his comment as basically saying the only reason he works at his job is to keep a roof

> So you're basically agreeing with the original commenter? No. > I read his comment as basically saying the only reason he works at his job is to keep a roof over his head Yes, that's also my reading of the comment. > if you don't work you'll eventually be homeless. Likely, yes. But the question isn't work vs. no work. The question is working at the OP's so-called "difficult" job vs. working at less difficult jobs. That's why the issue of homelessness is mostly irrelevant. My strong suspicion is that the OP works at a "difficult" job, which presumably pays a lot more than "BS jobs", because the OP actually aspires to a more luxurious standard of living than the bare minimum. Given the OP's other comments, e.g., the OP's job "takes a lot of work to get the skills necessary to do it", and given the fact that this is Hacker News, I'm assuming that the OP is a relatively well-compensated member of the tech industry. When the OP says, "Who's going to take over my job? Probably nobody", as if a well-paying job in the tech industry is somehow the "price" of avoiding homelessness, I dispute that. It's kind of like when engineers defend working on unethical projects "because I have to feed my family", despite the fact that the vast majority of people feed their families without 6-figure incomes and stock options.