So if your job sent you an email tomorrow that said they were going to stop paying you from here on out, indefinitely, you’d quit working for them and do something you wanted to do instead, even if it was broadly similar to what you are currently doing for them?
If they gave me a lump sum such that I don’t need the money anymore, I’d probably keep working there for a year or two at least, but reduce my hours a bit. I like my company, team, and project, so it’s nice to have something steady to work on. It’s not my ideal setup, but it’s consistent and good enough.
But longer term, yeah, I’d probably replace that time with FOSS work once I get onto a really interesting project.
No, I’m saying I would stick with my job for 1-2 years if I didn’t need the money and they stopped paying me. I’m not going to work for free while I need money, but I’d be happy to work for free once I no longer need money.
It doesn’t change that fact whether they are paying you before the work is done or after. It’s still a transaction. You contribute time and effort to them, they contribute compensation to you for that time and effort.
And everyone needs money, it’s just that some have more than others.
If you hit the lottery tomorrow and won 500 million dollars, maybe not immediately, but you would almost definitely not continue to work at your job volunteering your time and labor to help them make money (and if you would, you shouldn’t, because that devalues the labor of your coworkers and everyone else in your field).
Mind you, I’m not at all saying this is a bad thing. If anything, it’s a good thing. I’m not sure why you seem to feel the need to make yourself an exception, but really, the only people I’ve encountered who are an exception to this rule are people who are both working in a field where the labor itself is intrinsically rewarding (teachers, caregivers, medical professionals, artists, chefs, brewers, etc.) and would be financially supported by another when the pay stopped (usually a spouse but sometimes wealthy parents, etc.).
And in those cases, it’s really not even an exception so much as it is splitting the circumstance across two people, because even then, they’re just getting a free ride to do what they want and ignore the need for money that drives the labor market.
I’m also certainly not saying “everyone hates their job”. Lots of people enjoy their work and that’s great! But for the vast majority of people, if they were no longer to receive a paycheck from their employer, they’d do something else. Either because they needed money, or because there are things they’d enjoy even more than their job that they can do with that time. It’s not a criticism, just an observation.
If you hit the lottery tomorrow and won 500 million dollars, maybe not immediately, but you would almost definitely not continue to work at your job volunteering your time and labor to help them make money (and if you would, you shouldn’t, because that devalues the labor of your coworkers and everyone else in your field).
Eh, honestly, I would probably stick around for a year or two, maybe longer. I genuinely like the work I do. Even if I won the lottery, or if my parents died and gave me a massive inheritance or something.
I want to start my own thing, but honestly, having a set schedule and obligations with consistent delivery is a good routine to be in.
Either because they needed money
Well obviously nobody is going to spend 8 hours doing something they enjoy if it means they can’t pay their bills or put food on the table. But that’s not really an interesting point imo, all it means is that my main motivation for work is to pay the bills. Once that requirement is gone, the more interesting question is whether I’d continue.
And my answer is, I’d continue, at least for a year or two, until I find something more rewarding to do. If I became a millionaire overnight, I don’t think my day-to-day life would change all that much, at least in the short-term. Maybe in a year or two I’ll find something more fulfilling (there are some charitable causes I’d like to support), but I don’t think I’d jump into that without testing the waters first. I’d probably negotiate fewer hours at my job, but I probably wouldn’t go below 20.
Money isn’t really a motivator for me. I make enough to pay the bills and put some away for retirement, but I’ve never really cared much for buying stuff. So to me, as long as I can pay the bills and I enjoy the work, I’ll keep doing it.
You’ve set up a scenario where one person no longer has to work and if they didn’t then why would they continue contributing to a company they get nothing from. Your scenario is disingenuous. Instead imagine a world where no one is paid. How many of those people would work doing what they are now vs stop working entirely. That’s the scenario where “people don’t want to work” truly matters.
So if your job sent you an email tomorrow that said they were going to stop paying you from here on out, indefinitely, you’d quit working for them and do something you wanted to do instead, even if it was broadly similar to what you are currently doing for them?
Thanks, that’s exactly what I’m talking about.
If they gave me a lump sum such that I don’t need the money anymore, I’d probably keep working there for a year or two at least, but reduce my hours a bit. I like my company, team, and project, so it’s nice to have something steady to work on. It’s not my ideal setup, but it’s consistent and good enough.
But longer term, yeah, I’d probably replace that time with FOSS work once I get onto a really interesting project.
That’s a very creative and roundabout way of saying you do expect to be paid for your work and would quit your job if they quit paying you.
No, I’m saying I would stick with my job for 1-2 years if I didn’t need the money and they stopped paying me. I’m not going to work for free while I need money, but I’d be happy to work for free once I no longer need money.
You said, and I quote:
That’s payment. For your work.
It doesn’t change that fact whether they are paying you before the work is done or after. It’s still a transaction. You contribute time and effort to them, they contribute compensation to you for that time and effort.
And everyone needs money, it’s just that some have more than others.
If you hit the lottery tomorrow and won 500 million dollars, maybe not immediately, but you would almost definitely not continue to work at your job volunteering your time and labor to help them make money (and if you would, you shouldn’t, because that devalues the labor of your coworkers and everyone else in your field).
Mind you, I’m not at all saying this is a bad thing. If anything, it’s a good thing. I’m not sure why you seem to feel the need to make yourself an exception, but really, the only people I’ve encountered who are an exception to this rule are people who are both working in a field where the labor itself is intrinsically rewarding (teachers, caregivers, medical professionals, artists, chefs, brewers, etc.) and would be financially supported by another when the pay stopped (usually a spouse but sometimes wealthy parents, etc.).
And in those cases, it’s really not even an exception so much as it is splitting the circumstance across two people, because even then, they’re just getting a free ride to do what they want and ignore the need for money that drives the labor market.
I’m also certainly not saying “everyone hates their job”. Lots of people enjoy their work and that’s great! But for the vast majority of people, if they were no longer to receive a paycheck from their employer, they’d do something else. Either because they needed money, or because there are things they’d enjoy even more than their job that they can do with that time. It’s not a criticism, just an observation.
Eh, honestly, I would probably stick around for a year or two, maybe longer. I genuinely like the work I do. Even if I won the lottery, or if my parents died and gave me a massive inheritance or something.
I want to start my own thing, but honestly, having a set schedule and obligations with consistent delivery is a good routine to be in.
Well obviously nobody is going to spend 8 hours doing something they enjoy if it means they can’t pay their bills or put food on the table. But that’s not really an interesting point imo, all it means is that my main motivation for work is to pay the bills. Once that requirement is gone, the more interesting question is whether I’d continue.
And my answer is, I’d continue, at least for a year or two, until I find something more rewarding to do. If I became a millionaire overnight, I don’t think my day-to-day life would change all that much, at least in the short-term. Maybe in a year or two I’ll find something more fulfilling (there are some charitable causes I’d like to support), but I don’t think I’d jump into that without testing the waters first. I’d probably negotiate fewer hours at my job, but I probably wouldn’t go below 20.
Money isn’t really a motivator for me. I make enough to pay the bills and put some away for retirement, but I’ve never really cared much for buying stuff. So to me, as long as I can pay the bills and I enjoy the work, I’ll keep doing it.
You’ve set up a scenario where one person no longer has to work and if they didn’t then why would they continue contributing to a company they get nothing from. Your scenario is disingenuous. Instead imagine a world where no one is paid. How many of those people would work doing what they are now vs stop working entirely. That’s the scenario where “people don’t want to work” truly matters.