4 ms·

> Considering how much of your life you dedicate towards working, why the hell aren't you making damn well sure it's doing something that gives you at least a s

> Considering how much of your life you dedicate towards working, why the hell aren't you making damn well sure it's doing something that gives you at least a sense of fulfillment, if not outright joy. Yeah. That's what "The Man" wants you to believe in. Back in the day, people used to be largely self-sufficient, filling their time with tasks for themselves (farming, weaving, building things), profiting by selling the surplus or charging to do something they were good at, and using the money to buy the things they needed. As you know, industrial revolution and large scale monoculture changed that. People would sweat all day, and because there was no time (or energy) left for anything else, they couldn't build anything for themselves, making employees heavily dependent on their jobs. That power player had two important effects: because the employer has the upper hand, it can command lower wages; in turn, those lower wages drive credit, creating an entire economy based on debt, which reinforces the importance of securing a job, again driving wages lower, in a feedback loop. So, why that "find a job that you love" is utter bullshit then? Because, ultimately, every job is bad. Every job is an asymmetric negotiation where the employee exchanges his lifetime to a monetary reward that is, guaranteed, smaller than the value he adds. Not to say that it isn't useful, but is certainly a sub-optimal way of using oneself's limited time on earth. "Passive income" strategy is the exact opposite of that, since the rewards are not bound to how much you can charge your hour, and more to how valuable your work is. Historically, that's how writers, artists, inventors and such have made money. Nowadays, though, the potential is enormous given the cost of automation and reproduction of creative work is ever decreasing. If you stop and think, this is mind-blowing. Of course, Forbes doesn't want you to realize that.

readme 13y ago
Of course the passive income bootstrappers are getting slammed all day today on HN, the VCs don't make any money off of them. So hey, maybe you had an awesome idea and some ambition to build a company, you can be your own boss! Nah, just sell your soul to some investors, then you can have a master all over again just like you wanted.
carlob 13y ago
While I agree with your general sentiment, I think you need to check your historical facts. Up to the industrial revolution the vast majority of the workforce was in agriculture, namely either in serfdom or working somebody else's land for a pittance. Not many were really self sufficient. Secondly, artists, scholars, inventors where either nobles, priests or depending on the local court for their income.
- coldtea 13y ago
  >Up to the industrial revolution the vast majority of the workforce was in agriculture, namely either in serfdom or working somebody else's land for a pittance. Not many were really self sufficient. Depends on the country -- not all places had feudalism. In freer places, people were self sufficient for millenia. Heck, people were self succicient even in the US mainland in the 17th-18th century, and that was far from any "industrial" landscape.
  - carlob 13y ago
    You don't really need to have feudalism to have servitude, if you're working somebody else's land and you're allowed to keep just barely enough to eat, that'll basically turn you into a serf (and it's still the case in many places around the word, seasonal tomato pickers in Italy is one I know of). On the other hand you are right that in the colonies the situation was somewhat freer — at first -, that's how they got people to move from the old world, but I'm pretty sure that the situation got back to inequality pretty quickly. The point I'm trying to make is that this Arcadian paradise that conservatives like to call 'back in the day' is really more of a myth.
    - coldtea 13y ago
      >The point I'm trying to make is that this Arcadian paradise that conservatives like to call 'back in the day' is really more of a myth. In some parts of the world yes. In others no. But not for the reasons the progressives put forward (toil, lack of progress, etc). For political reasons: people being in command of other people. There were villages and regions all over Europe that such was not the case, and people were free. Sure, you had to work, but that's just as it is now (minus the modern conveniences). Actually, even in medieval Europe, agrarian societes had so many festivity days that almost half the year was off.
ksk 13y ago
>So, why that "find a job that you love" is utter bullshit then? Those things are not related. So what if you get paid less than the value you add? That doesn't mean that suddenly its not a job that you love. >Nowadays, though, the potential is enormous given the cost of automation and reproduction of creative work is ever decreasing. I'd argue the opposite actually. Because its so trivial to make a copy of something. Income based off of royalties can be sustainable for a very small minority. And this has always been the case. >Of course, Forbes doesn't want you to realize that. Why not? Large corporations - music producers, book publishers, movie producers, pharma companies, manufacturers, etc all run on the assumption that they will find enough people with passive income on their brains...
- consonants 13y ago
  >Those things are not related. So what if you get paid less than the value you add? That doesn't mean that suddenly its not a job that you love. For some the cognitive dissonance that comes with such alienation doesn't sit well. >Why not? Large corporations - music producers, book publishers, movie producers, pharma companies, manufacturers, etc all run on the assumption that they will find enough people with passive income on their brains... Forbes has vested interest in maintaining a populace that ultimately doesn't have a choice in whether they have to undersell their labor to survive, nor question their employer-employee relations. Again, this comes back to the cognitive dissonance that being forced into an unequal relationship elicits.
  - ksk 13y ago
    >For some the cognitive dissonance that comes with such alienation doesn't sit well. Well duh, its only cognitive dissonance if you accept the premise of the argument. I am challenging the premise itself ! The claim that unless you are paid a certain amount you cannot derive enjoyment from your work is silly. Obtaining financial security while giving up the additional value of your work to your employer is the basis of every single company under a capitalist model. Also keep in mind that this is all theory. I doubt anyone can accurately quantify the value their individual work brings to the company. This value will fluctuate from month to month, week to week, year to year. And if the company briefly goes into loss you might be adding negative value ! So does that mean one week you love your job, next week you hate it? I mean.. seriously.. the argument as it stands does not pass the smell test.

readme 13y ago

Of course the passive income bootstrappers are getting slammed all day today on HN, the VCs don't make any money off of them. So hey, maybe you had an awesome idea and some ambition to build a company, you can be your own boss! Nah, just sell your soul to some investors, then you can have a master all over again just like you wanted.

carlob 13y ago

While I agree with your general sentiment, I think you need to check your historical facts. Up to the industrial revolution the vast majority of the workforce was in agriculture, namely either in serfdom or working somebody else's land for a pittance. Not many were really self sufficient. Secondly, artists, scholars, inventors where either nobles, priests or depending on the local court for their income.

coldtea 13y ago
>Up to the industrial revolution the vast majority of the workforce was in agriculture, namely either in serfdom or working somebody else's land for a pittance. Not many were really self sufficient. Depends on the country -- not all places had feudalism. In freer places, people were self sufficient for millenia. Heck, people were self succicient even in the US mainland in the 17th-18th century, and that was far from any "industrial" landscape.
- carlob 13y ago
  You don't really need to have feudalism to have servitude, if you're working somebody else's land and you're allowed to keep just barely enough to eat, that'll basically turn you into a serf (and it's still the case in many places around the word, seasonal tomato pickers in Italy is one I know of). On the other hand you are right that in the colonies the situation was somewhat freer — at first -, that's how they got people to move from the old world, but I'm pretty sure that the situation got back to inequality pretty quickly. The point I'm trying to make is that this Arcadian paradise that conservatives like to call 'back in the day' is really more of a myth.
  - coldtea 13y ago
    >The point I'm trying to make is that this Arcadian paradise that conservatives like to call 'back in the day' is really more of a myth. In some parts of the world yes. In others no. But not for the reasons the progressives put forward (toil, lack of progress, etc). For political reasons: people being in command of other people. There were villages and regions all over Europe that such was not the case, and people were free. Sure, you had to work, but that's just as it is now (minus the modern conveniences). Actually, even in medieval Europe, agrarian societes had so many festivity days that almost half the year was off.

ksk 13y ago

>So, why that "find a job that you love" is utter bullshit then? Those things are not related. So what if you get paid less than the value you add? That doesn't mean that suddenly its not a job that you love. >Nowadays, though, the potential is enormous given the cost of automation and reproduction of creative work is ever decreasing. I'd argue the opposite actually. Because its so trivial to make a copy of something. Income based off of royalties can be sustainable for a very small minority. And this has always been the case. >Of course, Forbes doesn't want you to realize that. Why not? Large corporations - music producers, book publishers, movie producers, pharma companies, manufacturers, etc all run on the assumption that they will find enough people with passive income on their brains...

consonants 13y ago
>Those things are not related. So what if you get paid less than the value you add? That doesn't mean that suddenly its not a job that you love. For some the cognitive dissonance that comes with such alienation doesn't sit well. >Why not? Large corporations - music producers, book publishers, movie producers, pharma companies, manufacturers, etc all run on the assumption that they will find enough people with passive income on their brains... Forbes has vested interest in maintaining a populace that ultimately doesn't have a choice in whether they have to undersell their labor to survive, nor question their employer-employee relations. Again, this comes back to the cognitive dissonance that being forced into an unequal relationship elicits.
- ksk 13y ago
  >For some the cognitive dissonance that comes with such alienation doesn't sit well. Well duh, its only cognitive dissonance if you accept the premise of the argument. I am challenging the premise itself ! The claim that unless you are paid a certain amount you cannot derive enjoyment from your work is silly. Obtaining financial security while giving up the additional value of your work to your employer is the basis of every single company under a capitalist model. Also keep in mind that this is all theory. I doubt anyone can accurately quantify the value their individual work brings to the company. This value will fluctuate from month to month, week to week, year to year. And if the company briefly goes into loss you might be adding negative value ! So does that mean one week you love your job, next week you hate it? I mean.. seriously.. the argument as it stands does not pass the smell test.