Midjourney/prompt: "open office concept, full of diverse people, watercolor style"

Jobs Are Good, Actually

Full-time jobs are underrated in an age of performative lifestyle design

137 3

Comments

You need to login before you can comment.
Don't have an account? Sign up!
@bsaunders_2028 almost 2 years ago

Romanticizing the side hustle is a veneer over despair. A lot of people recognize that full-time jobs that provide a modicum of steady income, some constraints on one's schedule, and a limited scope of work are worth some trade-offs in autonomy.

However, what people are dealing with are jobs with job descriptions they don't want in the first place, that don't pay enough money, "other duties not assigned," toxic companies, and no security.

@bsaunders_2028 good point.

Vincent Sanchez-Gomez almost 2 years ago

I mostly agree with the logic in the post if you are simply considering the impact of your job on your individual life and experience - but the reality is that a person's work doesn't exist in a vacuum.

From the article: "A job can be a vehicle for changing the world or deriving fulfillment, but many people do not work to self-actualize; they work to survive."

Considering the impact of one's work on society is not simply a matter of personal fulfillment and self-actualization. It can also be a matter of ethics. It can come from a place of understanding that companies differ in the way they distribute earnings, manage their environmental impact, contract exploitative labor, coerce consumers, lobby for policy change...etc. A job is one of the greatest influences a person can have on society, as they may be spending 8+ hours per day offering one of their greatest assets - their mind - to drive success for their employer. A person's work can amplify the proliferation of certain values, ideas, and the influence their employer has on society. For some, choice of employer is not an option, and they must accept the ONLY available job to survive. That does not appear to be the target audience of this article, as it is offering a perspective on career selection - which implies the reader may have agency in their career path. Otherwise, what use does this article have for someone without agency.

That said, I think it is totally a personal values judgement whether a person with the privilege of career choice cares to consider the broader societal implication of their choice - though whether a person chooses to consider it or not doesn't change the fact that their decision to choose a job simply for lifestyle reasons may directly or indirectly affect another community's ability to merely survive. If I were trying to offer a perspective on career choice, given my personal values, I would want my audience to consider this reality into their calculus.

Essentially, I see this article as representing a more individualistic perspective, and the advice feels logically sound from THAT perspective. But I also believe a collectivist attitude on career decision-making among people with the privilege of choice has the potential to lead to improved collective wellbeing - and as someone that values collective wellbeing, that's a perspective I'd personally want to spread.