6 ms·

What Work is Really For

84 points by dulse 14y ago

moxie 14y ago
This article's conclusion is kind of a let-down, but I think the thrust of it touches on part of what bothers me about the Bay Area entrepreneur scene: the strangely myopic focus on "business" as the primary mechanism for "creating." If we can accept that there are profitable companies which aren't socially productive or inspiring, shouldn't it follow that there are potentially a myriad of possible projects which might be amazing and worthwhile things to build, even if they obviously won't turn a profit? I can understand needing to sustain your own existence, but I'm always curious why "entrepreneurs" who've made enough to live comfortably (and even to endow their children) continue focus their productive energy on building companies measured by financial success, rather than exploring other creative possibilities.
- zafka 14y ago
  I understand your wonder. I think this is why Elon Musk is such a role model. After achieving independence, he is working on making the world a better place. At the same time, I can see that this subject is going to become more important as more of the work that society depends on is automated.
  - akldfgj 14y ago
    Elon Musk's current projects are still business ventures. And they aren't even lost causes like Shuttleworth's, which are de facto charities.
    - justincormack 14y ago
      Shuttleworth is trying to make money but revenues are still below costs. Redhat got a lot of the obvious market first though. I don't see it is any worse than any other startup trying to pivot to make revenue.
    - robryan 14y ago
      Elon Musk doesn't really have the money to run them any other way, to run projects of that magnitude at a possible permanent loss you would need to be right up the top of the worlds richest people.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- patio11 14y ago
  One straightforward answer: If I'm good at making systems which make systems which make money and you're good at teaching philosophy at a Catholic university, we should trade to maximize wealth creation.
  - Evbn 14y ago
    Assuming the system sysem maker wants the philosophy to get taught. But what if only non system makers what that teaching to happen?
- fusiongyro 14y ago
  I'm disappointed that the article I wanted to link to, "Startups Should Solve Problems, Not Boredom", is now gone. http://www.leavesofcode.com/2011/06/startups-need-to-solve-problems-not.html http://www.leavesofcode.com/2011/06/startups-need-to-solve-p... At any rate, he made a related point, that the Valley seems to see every problem as being essentially a flavor of boredom and every problem's solution as being an endless rush of attention-sapping communication (i.e. a social network). The article was really well written; it's a shame it's gone.
- JamesLeonis 14y ago
  I think one reason the conclusion doesn't satisfy is because the question of "What do we do in a post-work world?" is horribly open ended. I believe the question is relevant as technology and automation increasingly penetrate manufacturing, business administration, and (soon to be) transportation to name a few. To put it bluntly, for most programmers, it's our job to put others out of a job. The things we build make it easier to automate, streamline, and other buzzwords, which generally means that a company doesn't have to keep as many workers on the payroll. The business administration side is fairly decimated, and I believe the falling prices of 3D printers and robotized factories will lead to automated on-demand manufacturing. This means more people won't be able to find work, which will depress the demand for products. It's an interesting problem. > shouldn't it follow that there are potentially a myriad of possible projects which might be amazing and worthwhile things to build, even if they obviously won't turn a profit? Yes. I would argue that the artifacts of human culture (portraits, frescoes, symphonies, statues, etc), in many cases, have no obvious financial benefit at the time. They exist because they appeal to our aesthetic side and the creators lived at the pleasure of rich sponsors. Many programs of the Open Source universe started as an annoyance or a fling without any thought of profitability. Several tech companies started as research projects or "the itch" with no money in sight. Much of our software is still built pro-bono by an army of volunteers. In this way programming starts to mirror the art world. The mindset to adopt is to create for the sake of creating, and letting others critique the work. Think about a programmer version of art hostels in Paris of early 20th century. In fact, go watch Midnight in Paris and see if you can picture (hah!) programmers drinking and talking instead of artists and writers. There are programmers out there like that, like Mr. Bellard and his DIY cell phone base station [1] or John Carmack's Armadillo Aerospace [2]. They build for the sake of building something cool. [1]: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4469424 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4469424 [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_carmack#Armadillo_Aerospace http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_carmack#Armadillo_Aerospac... For your second question, I can only assume that many entrepreneurs enjoy the challenge of building successful companies. Being wildly successful means they have additional capital and can chase larger and more complex problems. SpaceX comes to mind. Granted I can't think of a founder that was very successful start something trivial (I'm sure they're out there).
  - 14y ago
dmk23 14y ago
The article is a great example of over-thinking things that should be really simple. Whatever you are doing, you should choose a career you can enjoy. Some people are really picky of what (in their view) constitutes meaningful and fulfilling work. Others may consider any work that generates money to be fulfilling by this definition alone. One person feels they have to solve the world hunger to feel good about themselves. Someone else feels fulfilled just working on better advertising technologies. Yet another person has to start Wikileaks or become a martyr of some kind to feel like they have accomplished something. Stop over-thinking the meaning of life and just find a career that makes you happy! If your work feels like fun you'll be motivated to achieve in whatever path you have chosen. EDIT: To address the comment that definitions of "fulfillment" can change over lifetime, let me repeat the famous quote: "in the long run we are all dead". If you are not enjoying the journey you are probably not very excited about your supposed destination. But I am sure the debates about the "meaning of life" and the "search for the right path, etc" is a way to happiness for many people. Go for it!
- tonyedgecombe 14y ago
  "just find a career that makes you happy!" Looking at my friends, relatives and neighbours I would say this is a lot harder than it sounds.
  - tluyben2 14y ago
    That depends on what 'hard' means; it's hard to take the step, not to actually do it. People are very scared and security seeking. I don't like the ex CEO of godaddy much, but 'security is for corpses' is definitely something he was right about. When you are born, you are almost dead. There is no reason to be so careful; I mean, don't drunk-drive or inject yourself with random stuff to get a maybe-high, but doing only stuff you like? Whats the harm in that? You're going to die if there is a mistake? No, you'll have a maybe temporary hard time. At least you did what you like. It's incredible what small amount of people actually do this. Most people agree with this though but they don't do because of BUNCH_OF_SECURITY_EXCUSES. Edit: I seem to have remembered the phrase from Bob Parsons incorrectly. It's "Security is for cadavers." (http://www.bobparsons.me/bp_16_rules.php http://www.bobparsons.me/bp_16_rules.php). I hoped that it actually was from someone else :)
blackhole 14y ago
If my job is to do what I'd do in my free time anyway, it doesn't matter. I'm not happy if I play games all day, I'm happy when I build something other people want to use. I'm happy when I solve problems. I'm happy when I make something that entertains others. Work is the result of people being unable to find what makes them both happy and productive.
oleganza 14y ago
Author fails to mention: 1. That "capitalism" does not produce anything. It is people who produce for each other. 2. Who to decide what's needed for particular human's flourishing? 3. Who to decide how exactly, at what costs "schools should aim to produce self-determining agents"? Capitalism is defined by property ownership, it does not have any inherent rules how to profit. And profits, after all, are not monetary, but subjective. You are earning money being software developer, not carpenter because probably it fulfills your life better this way, with lesser regard of the amount earned. Truth is nobody can authoritatively answer what is good for other people. But if everybody respects each other's property, it is possible to see how for each pair of exchanging persons both parties profit. Even "useless" speculators are doing social good by equalizing prices making calculations and predictions easier (unless they participate in Fed's money printing, which is not a feature of capitalism, but simple robbery).
norswap 14y ago
I encourage you to read the essay referenced in the article: http://www.zpub.com/notes/idle.html http://www.zpub.com/notes/idle.html (In Praise of Idleness, by Bertrand Russel) A true eye opener.
- panacea 14y ago
  Can't be bothered.
  - polynomial 14y ago
    That's lethargy, not idleness.
- rubidium 14y ago
  See also: "Leisure, the Basis of Culture" by Josef Pieper. A bit longer essay, but full of gems.
yummyfajitas 14y ago
The point that we are consumers first and producers second is a very good one. We absolutely need to accept that jobs are a cost, not a benefit. But the article goes way off the rails towards the middle: "But capitalism as such is not interested in quality of life. It is essentially a system for producing things to sell at a profit, the greater the better." This is silly. Insofar as capitalism makes normative claims, the claims are merely that people should be able to do as they wish with their own property. It also makes the positive claim that allowing people to do this will typically increase utility for all market agents. I'm also not sure what the heck he is talking about in the conclusion - people without a liberal education are unable to make their own choices about what to buy? Huh?
- dulse 14y ago
  I think the point he makes in the middle is a good one, even if he oversimplifies capitalism's claims. Increasing market utility under capitalism says nothing about increasing the quality of life of the market agents - it says nothing on the role of happiness or quality of life in a free market. And you can see many instances of (especially deregulated) capitalism spin out profound and unethical unhappiness (e.g., the US meatpacking industry in the early 20th century). The point he is raising is that there is an essential disconnect between the things that we as human beings care about (eg, quality of life, improving the world, raising families, aesthetic pleasures, knowledge) and what agents in capitalism care about (eg, profit). As for the conclusion, I agree he does sort of get in the weeds a bit (what kind of education does he see as training consumers? I never took a class on that...). But he seems to be getting at the idea that part of the role of education in capitalism is empowering free agents to make ethical, informed purchasing decisions so that the free market veers toward good. If we aren't educated on broad topics and don't have autonomous free thinking, we might not believe in global warming and therefore not create a market for electric cars; or we not care about the ethical treatment of animals, so disregard organics and keep our cheaper Tyson products.
  - yummyfajitas 14y ago
    Increasing market utility under capitalism says nothing about increasing the quality of life of the market agents - it says nothing on the role of happiness or quality of life in a free market. Are you claiming there is some huge gap between utility and happiness/quality of life? Note that utility is defined as what people choose for themselves. How do you define happiness or quality of life? ...and what agents in capitalism care about (eg, profit). You make the same fallacy the OP does. Agents in capitalism care about utility, not profit. See this piece I wrote a while back, for example, which explains why we have such a large leisure class in America in a purely utility maximizing framework. (Hint: profit != utility.) http://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2011/why_the_poor_dont_work.html http://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2011/why_the_poor_dont_wor...
swalsh 14y ago
I used to program as my leisure activity. Now it's my job. Why does my day job feel like work? I have less freedom to play! When I programmed at home, i'd use the technology I wanted, i'd try new things. At work, i'm more rigorous. I do what works, not what's fun.
michaelochurch 14y ago
Work as in productive activity is a part of who we are, but this world in which people have to deal with the stress and misery and downright inefficiency of a subordinate context is a disaster. And it's not stable. What happened to agricultural commodities in the 1920s-30s (leading to rural poverty and the Depression) is now happening to almost all human labor. The work of unmotivated people is worth almost zero, but most people don't have the social access and trust to get out of the subordinate context and into a motivating role. The next 50 years may be really great, or we may see a violent, global class war that kills millions. It depends on how the surplus and resources are distributed.
leot 14y ago
The division between "leisure" and "work" proffered is too coarse and binary. A continuity of work-y-ness makes more sense: the degree to which something qualifies as "work" is proportional to how distal the reward is. Most leisure provides immediate reward for some amount of effort/energy expended, or at the very least provides little reward but demands little, too. But when the only pay-off for one's effort is years away, this is when true work takes place.

84 points by dulse 14y ago

moxie 14y ago

This article's conclusion is kind of a let-down, but I think the thrust of it touches on part of what bothers me about the Bay Area entrepreneur scene: the strangely myopic focus on "business" as the primary mechanism for "creating." If we can accept that there are profitable companies which aren't socially productive or inspiring, shouldn't it follow that there are potentially a myriad of possible projects which might be amazing and worthwhile things to build, even if they obviously won't turn a profit? I can understand needing to sustain your own existence, but I'm always curious why "entrepreneurs" who've made enough to live comfortably (and even to endow their children) continue focus their productive energy on building companies measured by financial success, rather than exploring other creative possibilities.

zafka 14y ago
I understand your wonder. I think this is why Elon Musk is such a role model. After achieving independence, he is working on making the world a better place. At the same time, I can see that this subject is going to become more important as more of the work that society depends on is automated.
- akldfgj 14y ago
  Elon Musk's current projects are still business ventures. And they aren't even lost causes like Shuttleworth's, which are de facto charities.
  - justincormack 14y ago
    Shuttleworth is trying to make money but revenues are still below costs. Redhat got a lot of the obvious market first though. I don't see it is any worse than any other startup trying to pivot to make revenue.
  - robryan 14y ago
    Elon Musk doesn't really have the money to run them any other way, to run projects of that magnitude at a possible permanent loss you would need to be right up the top of the worlds richest people.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
patio11 14y ago
One straightforward answer: If I'm good at making systems which make systems which make money and you're good at teaching philosophy at a Catholic university, we should trade to maximize wealth creation.
- Evbn 14y ago
  Assuming the system sysem maker wants the philosophy to get taught. But what if only non system makers what that teaching to happen?
fusiongyro 14y ago
I'm disappointed that the article I wanted to link to, "Startups Should Solve Problems, Not Boredom", is now gone. http://www.leavesofcode.com/2011/06/startups-need-to-solve-problems-not.html http://www.leavesofcode.com/2011/06/startups-need-to-solve-p... At any rate, he made a related point, that the Valley seems to see every problem as being essentially a flavor of boredom and every problem's solution as being an endless rush of attention-sapping communication (i.e. a social network). The article was really well written; it's a shame it's gone.
JamesLeonis 14y ago
I think one reason the conclusion doesn't satisfy is because the question of "What do we do in a post-work world?" is horribly open ended. I believe the question is relevant as technology and automation increasingly penetrate manufacturing, business administration, and (soon to be) transportation to name a few. To put it bluntly, for most programmers, it's our job to put others out of a job. The things we build make it easier to automate, streamline, and other buzzwords, which generally means that a company doesn't have to keep as many workers on the payroll. The business administration side is fairly decimated, and I believe the falling prices of 3D printers and robotized factories will lead to automated on-demand manufacturing. This means more people won't be able to find work, which will depress the demand for products. It's an interesting problem. > shouldn't it follow that there are potentially a myriad of possible projects which might be amazing and worthwhile things to build, even if they obviously won't turn a profit? Yes. I would argue that the artifacts of human culture (portraits, frescoes, symphonies, statues, etc), in many cases, have no obvious financial benefit at the time. They exist because they appeal to our aesthetic side and the creators lived at the pleasure of rich sponsors. Many programs of the Open Source universe started as an annoyance or a fling without any thought of profitability. Several tech companies started as research projects or "the itch" with no money in sight. Much of our software is still built pro-bono by an army of volunteers. In this way programming starts to mirror the art world. The mindset to adopt is to create for the sake of creating, and letting others critique the work. Think about a programmer version of art hostels in Paris of early 20th century. In fact, go watch Midnight in Paris and see if you can picture (hah!) programmers drinking and talking instead of artists and writers. There are programmers out there like that, like Mr. Bellard and his DIY cell phone base station [1] or John Carmack's Armadillo Aerospace [2]. They build for the sake of building something cool. [1]: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4469424 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4469424 [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_carmack#Armadillo_Aerospace http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_carmack#Armadillo_Aerospac... For your second question, I can only assume that many entrepreneurs enjoy the challenge of building successful companies. Being wildly successful means they have additional capital and can chase larger and more complex problems. SpaceX comes to mind. Granted I can't think of a founder that was very successful start something trivial (I'm sure they're out there).
- 14y ago

dmk23 14y ago

The article is a great example of over-thinking things that should be really simple. Whatever you are doing, you should choose a career you can enjoy. Some people are really picky of what (in their view) constitutes meaningful and fulfilling work. Others may consider any work that generates money to be fulfilling by this definition alone. One person feels they have to solve the world hunger to feel good about themselves. Someone else feels fulfilled just working on better advertising technologies. Yet another person has to start Wikileaks or become a martyr of some kind to feel like they have accomplished something. Stop over-thinking the meaning of life and just find a career that makes you happy! If your work feels like fun you'll be motivated to achieve in whatever path you have chosen. EDIT: To address the comment that definitions of "fulfillment" can change over lifetime, let me repeat the famous quote: "in the long run we are all dead". If you are not enjoying the journey you are probably not very excited about your supposed destination. But I am sure the debates about the "meaning of life" and the "search for the right path, etc" is a way to happiness for many people. Go for it!

tonyedgecombe 14y ago
"just find a career that makes you happy!" Looking at my friends, relatives and neighbours I would say this is a lot harder than it sounds.
- tluyben2 14y ago
  That depends on what 'hard' means; it's hard to take the step, not to actually do it. People are very scared and security seeking. I don't like the ex CEO of godaddy much, but 'security is for corpses' is definitely something he was right about. When you are born, you are almost dead. There is no reason to be so careful; I mean, don't drunk-drive or inject yourself with random stuff to get a maybe-high, but doing only stuff you like? Whats the harm in that? You're going to die if there is a mistake? No, you'll have a maybe temporary hard time. At least you did what you like. It's incredible what small amount of people actually do this. Most people agree with this though but they don't do because of BUNCH_OF_SECURITY_EXCUSES. Edit: I seem to have remembered the phrase from Bob Parsons incorrectly. It's "Security is for cadavers." (http://www.bobparsons.me/bp_16_rules.php http://www.bobparsons.me/bp_16_rules.php). I hoped that it actually was from someone else :)

blackhole 14y ago

If my job is to do what I'd do in my free time anyway, it doesn't matter. I'm not happy if I play games all day, I'm happy when I build something other people want to use. I'm happy when I solve problems. I'm happy when I make something that entertains others. Work is the result of people being unable to find what makes them both happy and productive.

oleganza 14y ago

Author fails to mention: 1. That "capitalism" does not produce anything. It is people who produce for each other. 2. Who to decide what's needed for particular human's flourishing? 3. Who to decide how exactly, at what costs "schools should aim to produce self-determining agents"? Capitalism is defined by property ownership, it does not have any inherent rules how to profit. And profits, after all, are not monetary, but subjective. You are earning money being software developer, not carpenter because probably it fulfills your life better this way, with lesser regard of the amount earned. Truth is nobody can authoritatively answer what is good for other people. But if everybody respects each other's property, it is possible to see how for each pair of exchanging persons both parties profit. Even "useless" speculators are doing social good by equalizing prices making calculations and predictions easier (unless they participate in Fed's money printing, which is not a feature of capitalism, but simple robbery).

norswap 14y ago

I encourage you to read the essay referenced in the article: http://www.zpub.com/notes/idle.html http://www.zpub.com/notes/idle.html (In Praise of Idleness, by Bertrand Russel) A true eye opener.

panacea 14y ago
Can't be bothered.
- polynomial 14y ago
  That's lethargy, not idleness.
rubidium 14y ago
See also: "Leisure, the Basis of Culture" by Josef Pieper. A bit longer essay, but full of gems.

yummyfajitas 14y ago

The point that we are consumers first and producers second is a very good one. We absolutely need to accept that jobs are a cost, not a benefit. But the article goes way off the rails towards the middle: "But capitalism as such is not interested in quality of life. It is essentially a system for producing things to sell at a profit, the greater the better." This is silly. Insofar as capitalism makes normative claims, the claims are merely that people should be able to do as they wish with their own property. It also makes the positive claim that allowing people to do this will typically increase utility for all market agents. I'm also not sure what the heck he is talking about in the conclusion - people without a liberal education are unable to make their own choices about what to buy? Huh?

dulse 14y ago
I think the point he makes in the middle is a good one, even if he oversimplifies capitalism's claims. Increasing market utility under capitalism says nothing about increasing the quality of life of the market agents - it says nothing on the role of happiness or quality of life in a free market. And you can see many instances of (especially deregulated) capitalism spin out profound and unethical unhappiness (e.g., the US meatpacking industry in the early 20th century). The point he is raising is that there is an essential disconnect between the things that we as human beings care about (eg, quality of life, improving the world, raising families, aesthetic pleasures, knowledge) and what agents in capitalism care about (eg, profit). As for the conclusion, I agree he does sort of get in the weeds a bit (what kind of education does he see as training consumers? I never took a class on that...). But he seems to be getting at the idea that part of the role of education in capitalism is empowering free agents to make ethical, informed purchasing decisions so that the free market veers toward good. If we aren't educated on broad topics and don't have autonomous free thinking, we might not believe in global warming and therefore not create a market for electric cars; or we not care about the ethical treatment of animals, so disregard organics and keep our cheaper Tyson products.
- yummyfajitas 14y ago
  Increasing market utility under capitalism says nothing about increasing the quality of life of the market agents - it says nothing on the role of happiness or quality of life in a free market. Are you claiming there is some huge gap between utility and happiness/quality of life? Note that utility is defined as what people choose for themselves. How do you define happiness or quality of life? ...and what agents in capitalism care about (eg, profit). You make the same fallacy the OP does. Agents in capitalism care about utility, not profit. See this piece I wrote a while back, for example, which explains why we have such a large leisure class in America in a purely utility maximizing framework. (Hint: profit != utility.) http://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2011/why_the_poor_dont_work.html http://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2011/why_the_poor_dont_wor...

swalsh 14y ago

I used to program as my leisure activity. Now it's my job. Why does my day job feel like work? I have less freedom to play! When I programmed at home, i'd use the technology I wanted, i'd try new things. At work, i'm more rigorous. I do what works, not what's fun.

michaelochurch 14y ago

Work as in productive activity is a part of who we are, but this world in which people have to deal with the stress and misery and downright inefficiency of a subordinate context is a disaster. And it's not stable. What happened to agricultural commodities in the 1920s-30s (leading to rural poverty and the Depression) is now happening to almost all human labor. The work of unmotivated people is worth almost zero, but most people don't have the social access and trust to get out of the subordinate context and into a motivating role. The next 50 years may be really great, or we may see a violent, global class war that kills millions. It depends on how the surplus and resources are distributed.

leot 14y ago

The division between "leisure" and "work" proffered is too coarse and binary. A continuity of work-y-ness makes more sense: the degree to which something qualifies as "work" is proportional to how distal the reward is. Most leisure provides immediate reward for some amount of effort/energy expended, or at the very least provides little reward but demands little, too. But when the only pay-off for one's effort is years away, this is when true work takes place.