6 ms·

It's really quite simple - if I'm not doing something I'm enjoying, I'm not going to churn out a good end result. That's just inherent to the creative process.

It's really quite simple - if I'm not doing something I'm enjoying, I'm not going to churn out a good end result. That's just inherent to the creative process. My priorities lie with helping as many people as possible as much as possible, not with increasing the balance of a corporate bank account, so that result is unacceptable to me. It's very easy to shout "just get a job!", but the reality is that the moral repercussions of "just getting a job" are far bigger than asking people for voluntary(!) contributions if/when they appreciate what you're doing. My income is dependent on whether people appreciate what I do, not on whether I tick abstract checkboxes on a list of technical requirements that may very well not serve anyone. I consider that the better option of the two.

TheMagicHorsey 12y ago
Not sure if its efficient for someone else to work a job they don't like, for the man, so as to fund you, so you can work a job you like, not for the man. The moral repercussions as you call them, do not disappear if you transfer the burden onto someone else. I think you should figure out how to monetize your work and support yourself. Or, if that isn't possible, work some job (not necessarily in tech) to raise enough to feed yourself as you work. But I hope your kickstarter is successful in any case. Seems to me you would use the money in a more useful way than most.
- joepie91_ 12y ago
  > Not sure if its efficient for someone else to work a job they don't like, for the man, so as to fund you, so you can work a job you like, not for the man. > The moral repercussions as you call them, do not disappear if you transfer the burden onto someone else. They don't disappear, but they certainly do change. Money flows regardless; the question is to where it flows. If you look at things as a trade-off between energy and social benefit, in simplified form for the sake of illustration... Scenario A: Dave has a well-paid job, and let's say he's hypothetically able and willing to fund me entirely. He spends $17k of his yearly $100k on keeping me afloat. There is now one person-year of energy going to a corporate purpose, and one person-year of energy (mine) going into a socially beneficial purpose. Scenario B: Dave has the same well-paid job, but spends $17k on booze and other 'disposable income' things instead. He's not going to be paid any less. I have my own paid job, that pays $17k per year. There are now two person-years of energy going into a corporate purpose, and none into a socially beneficial purpose. Dave does not work any less hours, and his contribution to corporate purposes is not lessened, but mine has increased. Consider it as me trying to 'pick up the scraps' of money that others don't really need (and that they are willing to put towards a socially beneficial purpose), so that I can spend my person-years on something that benefits everybody, not just a corporate purpose. I would agree with your point if I were asking people to get a paid job for the purpose of supporting me (although you could then have a more interesting discussion about how the productivity differences change the equation), but as it stands I'm just piggybacking on corporate work that is already being done. The terminology I used above may not be perfectly accurate, but I've tried to keep it simple for readability. > I think you should figure out how to monetize your work and support yourself. Non-voluntary "monetizing" just introduces attached strings and distorted priorities, no matter how ethically okay the particular form of income is. It would not allow me to do what I do now. That's why I'm doing this fundraiser - which, conceptually, is just a form of voluntary monetization. > Or, if that isn't possible, work some job (not necessarily in tech) to raise enough to feed yourself as you work. I've tried that (see also my passage on the campaign page about the open-source job), and it didn't work out well at all. I had raised these concerns to my employer prior to taking on the job, and was told that they believed they could make it work, but it ended up not working after all, more or less as predicted (and I'm not blaming my employer for that). > But I hope your kickstarter is successful in any case. Seems to me you would use the money in a more useful way than most. Thanks!
  - bnejad 12y ago
    You keep implying that all jobs are just supporting the "corporate" entity or whatever but what does that really even mean? There are plenty of non-profits that employ software developers and plenty of other businesses that provide useful/genuine services. There is nothing inherently wrong with a corporation or business. If you are so against people working for corporations and the work that they produce, perhaps you should stop using computers and other electronics? You just aren't making a lot of sense here. Your reasons for not wanting to work are because it creates "strings" and "distorted priorities".. What is distorted about earning(giving effort) and receiving a paycheck? Its only about the most common thing across every society on earth. Dave gets to spend 17k on booze because Dave has a job. You want people to fund you because working "didn't work out" for you? Am I the only one finding this a little hard to swallow?
    - joepie91_ 12y ago
      > You keep implying that all jobs are just supporting the "corporate" entity or whatever but what does that really even mean? As I said, I simplified it for the purpose of illustration. These kind of topics are incredibly complex - especially when you go outside of the conventional "get a job, buy a house" routine and thus lack a shared context/perspective - so describing everything accurately at once in a single comment is very hard, if not impossible. The best I can do is to keep things readable and mostly accurate, and elaborate on any points of confusion. > There are plenty of non-profits that employ software developers This is correct. However, they normally have a very narrow focus, which means there's not a lot of variation. That's an excellent way to become unproductive and unmotivated. I can simply do much more useful stuff when I'm not tied to a particular single agenda or purpose. I'm optimizing for productivity, not for social acceptance. > and plenty of other businesses that provide useful/genuine services. Sure, but providing useful services is not their goal. Making money is. The 'useful services' are just an (attempted) method of getting there. If making money weren't their goal, they wouldn't be a commercial business - they'd be a non-profit. > There is nothing inherently wrong with a corporation or business. There is, but that's quite a complex topic that goes beyond just the points mentioned here. > If you are so against people working for corporations and the work that they produce, perhaps you should stop using computers and other electronics? How is that a reasonable conclusion? Computers and other electronics are not something that can exclusively be produced in a commercial manner, that just happens to be how they are produced right now. I don't exactly have a choice there. How does that lead to me having to stop using that technology, seeing as there is nothing wrong with the technology in itself? > You just aren't making a lot of sense here. Your reasons for not wanting to work are because it creates "strings" and "distorted priorities".. What is distorted about earning(giving effort) and receiving a paycheck? The distortion is that your goal is now that paycheck, rather than doing useful things. If a conflict ever arises between the two, that leads you to having to pick between 'doing it right' or retaining your income, guess which one will win? These conflicts happen to people on a daily basis, they're just commonly waved away or ignored through various cognitive biases. A tit-for-tat type of income inevitably leads to a shift in goals. Your goal is no longer the stated purpose of what you're doing, but rather following the wishes of whoever is bringing you that income. It creates a dependency, and not a healthy one. > Its only about the most common thing across every society on earth. As are corruption and dishonesty. That something is 'common' doesn't somehow make it morally justifiable or not distorted. > You want people to fund you because working "didn't work out" for you? No, and I've actually been quite clear about this. I want people to fund me if they appreciate what I do. That is the difference between accepting donations (which voluntary contributions effectively are), and panhandling. I'm essentially just giving people the choice to compensate me for my work, rather than forcing them to do so through a commercial business model. I really don't understand the insistence you're putting on "just get a job". If the social cost vs. social benefits of my proposal are better than if I were to get a job, where is the problem?
kadabra9 12y ago
It really is quite simple --- find work that you enjoy. This should be pretty easy for someone with your skillset. Just because you "want to help people" or have some moral objection to working for the man does not mean you're entitled to have others fund your dream lifestyle. There are millions of talented people (some of which I'm sure have noble intentions) out there who don't like their jobs, or at the end of the day are not producing a good result due to dissatisfaction with their jobs. If they want to take a year off, they work more, pick up side projects, cut expenses, and gradually save for it. Is that route really "morally" worse than asking others to pay for it?
- joepie91_ 12y ago
  > It really is quite simple --- find work that you enjoy. I already did. That's what I'm doing now. That I'm not employed by somebody or running a commercial operation, doesn't mean it's somehow not 'work'. The parameters are just different. > Just because you "want to help people" or have some moral objection to working for the man does not mean you're entitled to have others fund your dream lifestyle. Who said anything about entitlement? This is a fundraiser that you can voluntarily contribute to. It doesn't even have any material perks for that reason. I'm just constantly amazed at the lengths to which people go to try and paint accepting voluntary contributions as something immoral, while involuntary (that is, forced) payment is apparently perfectly fine. > There are millions of talented people (some of which I'm sure have noble intentions) out there who don't like their jobs, or at the end of the day are not producing a good result due to dissatisfaction with their jobs. If they want to take a year off, they work more, pick up side projects, cut expenses, and gradually save for it. Is that route really "morally" worse than asking others to pay for it? I consider forcing others to pay for something (by proxy) worse than asking others to pay for it, yes. I also find it odd that somebody else wouldn't.

TheMagicHorsey 12y ago

Not sure if its efficient for someone else to work a job they don't like, for the man, so as to fund you, so you can work a job you like, not for the man. The moral repercussions as you call them, do not disappear if you transfer the burden onto someone else. I think you should figure out how to monetize your work and support yourself. Or, if that isn't possible, work some job (not necessarily in tech) to raise enough to feed yourself as you work. But I hope your kickstarter is successful in any case. Seems to me you would use the money in a more useful way than most.

joepie91_ 12y ago
> Not sure if its efficient for someone else to work a job they don't like, for the man, so as to fund you, so you can work a job you like, not for the man. > The moral repercussions as you call them, do not disappear if you transfer the burden onto someone else. They don't disappear, but they certainly do change. Money flows regardless; the question is to where it flows. If you look at things as a trade-off between energy and social benefit, in simplified form for the sake of illustration... Scenario A: Dave has a well-paid job, and let's say he's hypothetically able and willing to fund me entirely. He spends $17k of his yearly $100k on keeping me afloat. There is now one person-year of energy going to a corporate purpose, and one person-year of energy (mine) going into a socially beneficial purpose. Scenario B: Dave has the same well-paid job, but spends $17k on booze and other 'disposable income' things instead. He's not going to be paid any less. I have my own paid job, that pays $17k per year. There are now two person-years of energy going into a corporate purpose, and none into a socially beneficial purpose. Dave does not work any less hours, and his contribution to corporate purposes is not lessened, but mine has increased. Consider it as me trying to 'pick up the scraps' of money that others don't really need (and that they are willing to put towards a socially beneficial purpose), so that I can spend my person-years on something that benefits everybody, not just a corporate purpose. I would agree with your point if I were asking people to get a paid job for the purpose of supporting me (although you could then have a more interesting discussion about how the productivity differences change the equation), but as it stands I'm just piggybacking on corporate work that is already being done. The terminology I used above may not be perfectly accurate, but I've tried to keep it simple for readability. > I think you should figure out how to monetize your work and support yourself. Non-voluntary "monetizing" just introduces attached strings and distorted priorities, no matter how ethically okay the particular form of income is. It would not allow me to do what I do now. That's why I'm doing this fundraiser - which, conceptually, is just a form of voluntary monetization. > Or, if that isn't possible, work some job (not necessarily in tech) to raise enough to feed yourself as you work. I've tried that (see also my passage on the campaign page about the open-source job), and it didn't work out well at all. I had raised these concerns to my employer prior to taking on the job, and was told that they believed they could make it work, but it ended up not working after all, more or less as predicted (and I'm not blaming my employer for that). > But I hope your kickstarter is successful in any case. Seems to me you would use the money in a more useful way than most. Thanks!
- bnejad 12y ago
  You keep implying that all jobs are just supporting the "corporate" entity or whatever but what does that really even mean? There are plenty of non-profits that employ software developers and plenty of other businesses that provide useful/genuine services. There is nothing inherently wrong with a corporation or business. If you are so against people working for corporations and the work that they produce, perhaps you should stop using computers and other electronics? You just aren't making a lot of sense here. Your reasons for not wanting to work are because it creates "strings" and "distorted priorities".. What is distorted about earning(giving effort) and receiving a paycheck? Its only about the most common thing across every society on earth. Dave gets to spend 17k on booze because Dave has a job. You want people to fund you because working "didn't work out" for you? Am I the only one finding this a little hard to swallow?
  - joepie91_ 12y ago
    > You keep implying that all jobs are just supporting the "corporate" entity or whatever but what does that really even mean? As I said, I simplified it for the purpose of illustration. These kind of topics are incredibly complex - especially when you go outside of the conventional "get a job, buy a house" routine and thus lack a shared context/perspective - so describing everything accurately at once in a single comment is very hard, if not impossible. The best I can do is to keep things readable and mostly accurate, and elaborate on any points of confusion. > There are plenty of non-profits that employ software developers This is correct. However, they normally have a very narrow focus, which means there's not a lot of variation. That's an excellent way to become unproductive and unmotivated. I can simply do much more useful stuff when I'm not tied to a particular single agenda or purpose. I'm optimizing for productivity, not for social acceptance. > and plenty of other businesses that provide useful/genuine services. Sure, but providing useful services is not their goal. Making money is. The 'useful services' are just an (attempted) method of getting there. If making money weren't their goal, they wouldn't be a commercial business - they'd be a non-profit. > There is nothing inherently wrong with a corporation or business. There is, but that's quite a complex topic that goes beyond just the points mentioned here. > If you are so against people working for corporations and the work that they produce, perhaps you should stop using computers and other electronics? How is that a reasonable conclusion? Computers and other electronics are not something that can exclusively be produced in a commercial manner, that just happens to be how they are produced right now. I don't exactly have a choice there. How does that lead to me having to stop using that technology, seeing as there is nothing wrong with the technology in itself? > You just aren't making a lot of sense here. Your reasons for not wanting to work are because it creates "strings" and "distorted priorities".. What is distorted about earning(giving effort) and receiving a paycheck? The distortion is that your goal is now that paycheck, rather than doing useful things. If a conflict ever arises between the two, that leads you to having to pick between 'doing it right' or retaining your income, guess which one will win? These conflicts happen to people on a daily basis, they're just commonly waved away or ignored through various cognitive biases. A tit-for-tat type of income inevitably leads to a shift in goals. Your goal is no longer the stated purpose of what you're doing, but rather following the wishes of whoever is bringing you that income. It creates a dependency, and not a healthy one. > Its only about the most common thing across every society on earth. As are corruption and dishonesty. That something is 'common' doesn't somehow make it morally justifiable or not distorted. > You want people to fund you because working "didn't work out" for you? No, and I've actually been quite clear about this. I want people to fund me if they appreciate what I do. That is the difference between accepting donations (which voluntary contributions effectively are), and panhandling. I'm essentially just giving people the choice to compensate me for my work, rather than forcing them to do so through a commercial business model. I really don't understand the insistence you're putting on "just get a job". If the social cost vs. social benefits of my proposal are better than if I were to get a job, where is the problem?

kadabra9 12y ago

It really is quite simple --- find work that you enjoy. This should be pretty easy for someone with your skillset. Just because you "want to help people" or have some moral objection to working for the man does not mean you're entitled to have others fund your dream lifestyle. There are millions of talented people (some of which I'm sure have noble intentions) out there who don't like their jobs, or at the end of the day are not producing a good result due to dissatisfaction with their jobs. If they want to take a year off, they work more, pick up side projects, cut expenses, and gradually save for it. Is that route really "morally" worse than asking others to pay for it?

joepie91_ 12y ago
> It really is quite simple --- find work that you enjoy. I already did. That's what I'm doing now. That I'm not employed by somebody or running a commercial operation, doesn't mean it's somehow not 'work'. The parameters are just different. > Just because you "want to help people" or have some moral objection to working for the man does not mean you're entitled to have others fund your dream lifestyle. Who said anything about entitlement? This is a fundraiser that you can voluntarily contribute to. It doesn't even have any material perks for that reason. I'm just constantly amazed at the lengths to which people go to try and paint accepting voluntary contributions as something immoral, while involuntary (that is, forced) payment is apparently perfectly fine. > There are millions of talented people (some of which I'm sure have noble intentions) out there who don't like their jobs, or at the end of the day are not producing a good result due to dissatisfaction with their jobs. If they want to take a year off, they work more, pick up side projects, cut expenses, and gradually save for it. Is that route really "morally" worse than asking others to pay for it? I consider forcing others to pay for something (by proxy) worse than asking others to pay for it, yes. I also find it odd that somebody else wouldn't.