The article doesn't really answer the question other than stating that there's more competition for sandwiches in London. Would've been nice to at least see some data to support that.
The article mentions this in the beginning, what's your point?
I love how every time there's talk of povery, some first world beneficiary jumps in to point out how much better poor people are compared to the past. Why they think that's relevant is beyond me.
> But for a long time I pretended it was fun. That I loved it. Because there is a lot of social pressure to portray yourself that way in the industry. People hiring you will run the other way as soon as they see a crack in that facade.
Yes, having to put up this facade is one of my least favorite things about this industry. It's all a load of bullsh*t, I'm only in my technical area because there are jobs and money - if money weren't an issue I'd be working on my own FOSS projects that are way more interesting and meaningful to me.
> Because it’s not really “passion” they are looking for, but people who are merely willing to endure long hours. They aren’t really looking for the person who spends a few hours on the weekend on an open-source project, they are looking for the person who comes home from work and spends all night on it.
Yup, it's a tough pill to swallow when one realizes the exploitative nature of wage labor, and the lie we've been fed our whole lives about employers being benevolent and treating employees like family. The reality is sociopathic managers who won't hesitate to stab you in the back to cover their asses and/or get that promotion.
> It’s really hard to celebrate “women’s day” with free feminist speakers when I just found out some guy who does the same work as me is getting paid 20% more.
I agree with most of the sentiment of the article so I don't want to be arguing here, but getting underpaid isn't an issue exclusive to women. Just because you're underpaid doesn't mean that it's because of your gender.
Ultimately, this article is the perspective of a wage laborer waking up to the bullshit of the system, and the meaninglessness of 8 hours/day of mandated "ass in seat" time doing boring work for a boss and having to put a smile on your face and pretend like it's your passion.
Everything she writes, all of us but the most brainwashed lemmings already know, but we're not allowed to say it for fear of being blacklisted from the industry. I appreciate her having the courage to speak out what everyone secretly wants to say, and wish her success in her new endeavors.
The very best RSS reader in my not-so-humble opinion is the FOSS [Newsboat](https://newsboat.org/), the spiritual successor to Newsbeauter.
It can pipe article links and text through other programs. I can pipe YouTube videos to youtube-dl, article text through pandoc and w3m, podcast files through podboat (newsboat's sister podcasting program), and links through a bookmarking program. You can also pipe article text through something like urlview to select links by pressing a key. I can also reload each of my 200+ feeds in a different thread to speed things up.
Feedly. On iOS it uses the SafariViewController to show the actual web pages in an embedded web view - meaning any content blockers you have installed also work within Feedly.
The problem with trying to find meaningful work is that 1. the pay is generally terrible, and hours will likely be long 2. if someone is paying you, it's still a "job", with all the implications, responsibilities, and power dynamics that go with that. You still take orders from a boss all day. And if it were so damn fun, then they probably wouldn't be paying you for it.
The most fun internships/jobs I've ever had were all unpaid, because I could come and go as I please, and literally work on whatever I wanted. The second you're getting paid, your personal interests are thrown out the window, and your job is now to take orders from your boss.
Of course there are exceptions. I'd imagine that being a tenured professor would be pretty sweet (though getting a job like that these days is extremely difficult and competitive), or if you're a doctor then helping save lives in Africa or something would probably be extremely fulfilling. Being a politician seems like it would feel meaningful, and they get paid solid six figure salaries.
But overall, the search for a meaningful job that also pays decently and doesn't require crazy hours is like searching for a unicorn, so for most people with the talent/luck/opportunity of working high paying jobs, achieving financial independence first before seeking meaningful work is probably the smartest move.
I don't think meaningful work has to be necessarily something with crap pay and the workload of a donkey in the first world war.
The key is the word "meaningful". I know a lot of people (and I used to be one), who would shift from job to job and leave when things weren't right any more. But this typically seems to involve taking what you are as a person as given, preferring instead to simply try and change one's circumstances to match that.
It's much easier to find meaning in your work if you're prepared to allow what you are as a person be up for negotiation somewhat, in addition to wanting to exercise a degree of control over your working circumstances.
A reflection of this is pretty easy to see in the way some people frame their decision-making when deciding whether to get a new job or not. They ask themselves "is this really what I'll want?", as opposed to "is this what the person I'll be after a few years of this will want?" or "will this turn me into a person I want?". By unconsciously taking one's self-image as fixed in that way, it becomes harder to find meaning in work and as a bonus also makes it somewhat more likely that you'll make the wrong decision because your potential future mental state isn't accounted for.
Not saying you do this at all, but that there are a lot of shades of grey between being an intern and having to do what your bosses say slavishly. And a lot of them are only really visible when you look inward at yourself rather than outward at your environment.
I've got a job at the moment that's great because of this - it's not perfect, but being able to work on what I am at the same time as shaping what this job is makes the job of finding a happy means of existence drastically easier.
>>But this typically seems to involve taking what you are as a person as given, preferring instead to simply try and change one's circumstances to match that.
Relevant quote: “The reasonable man adapts to the world around him, whereas the unreasonable man tries to adapt the world around him to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”
Something to think about next time you find yourself wanting to just get up and leave when things stop going your way. ;)
> They ask themselves "is this really what I'll want?", as opposed to "is this what the person I'll be after a few years of this will want?" or "will this turn me into a person I want?". By unconsciously taking one's self-image as fixed in that way, it becomes harder to find meaning in work and as a bonus also makes it somewhat more likely that you'll make the wrong decision because your potential future mental state isn't accounted for.
Thank you for this!
I think people overestimate how static the "self" actually is—everyone changes over time, and given how many hours a day you spend doing it, a job would almost definitely change you.
It's amazing how much of a revelation this can be! I remember it was shocking for me at first. The implications of being even a little less rigid in self-perception open up this entire giant conversation with yourself about how your world shapes you. And being able to talk about it is the first step to being able to do anything about it.
It's actually quite fun to think explicitly about what else you could become (and why), I think.
If the meaningful work you want to do is in education or environment... There is basically no well paying jobs.
There's no business profit in clean water or air, so capitalism doesn't cover the need. The fact there might be no customers in an area in 50 years is outside the scope of economic patterns. In 40-45 years all the current business leaders will have their pockets lined & be retired... and new leaders will beg the government to fix "the problem no one saw coming"... Shifting businesses profits today for taxpayer-funded fixes later for "economic revitalization" or "environmental repairs"
On top of these issues... if you have bills, you often can't take a pay cut to pull this off. I'd be willing to take a pay cut for meaningful work, but it would still need to cover child care and rent. My wife looked at jobs with the EPA, they offered $50k for masters degree and 8 years of experience. A single family home on 1/5th acre is $500k+. If we both did meaningful work we could not live there, let alone have kids ($1250/month child care).
We decided we just couldn't do meaningful work in the DC area and left. This stinks because we really need to be worried about this stuff for our children's future. But as long as private industry pays 50-75% more, the rising costs of everything to accommodate those well paying jobs chokes out teachers, environmental workers, and low-wage retail jobs (aside from kids still living at home)
> If the meaningful work you want to do is in education or environment... There is basically no well paying jobs.
Lambda School is an existence proof that you can do good and make money in education. Minerva University looks pretty good too. Udacity and Coursera are helping and have helped a ton of people as well. When I was a kindergarten teacher I used Starfall.com all the time. Mathletics and ixl.com come highly recommended by friends who teach primary school. Outschool.com are working on a teacher student marketplace for classes. Baselang.com is the best place to learn Spanish on the internet, hands down. Italki.com is a pretty good marketplace for language lessons too.
You can’t do much with schools really because schools are run for the benefit of teachers not students but if you want to help students there’s a lot to be done in education, and plenty of people doing it.
I just don't agree with this viewpoint at all. There are plenty of profitable startups directly focused on education and the environment. Maybe you don't agree with their definition of meaningful but don't let perfect be the mortal enemy of better.
whatever meaningful means to you should be a highly personal measure, not the classic, obvious societal ones. It also helps if the macro-benefit of the act is a symptom of the behaviour vs. the goal. example: I ride a bike to work everyday because it's fun, good for me and cheaper than driving. I dn'to it primarily because it's good for the planet, but hey, it's a nice bonus. We need to look for lots of opportunities that do good for others as a consequence of doing well for ourselves, not a subsistute.
I was a tenured professor (the European equivalent). Overall it was a very good position but not necessarily meaningful, and certainly not lucrative. Besides, being somewhat a second-class researcher, I was kind of stuck in my university.
I thought for a long time this was the Graal job, until I realized that there were so many cool things to do. I eventually switched job, and I regret that I hadn't done it before. Simply changing job is very refreshing.
Also tenured professor who left. I don't think of myself as second rate but academics, at least in many fields of the US, is becoming full of bullshit-chasing fads. Universities see your role as to bring in money from the federal gov, which means constant pressure to join bandwagons even when you vehemently disagree. I never felt as little intellectual freedom as I did in my tenured position. Mix it with dysfunctional top-heavy administration and it's a toxic mix. It probably varies by institution too, but then you run into the bizarre stochastic kobuki of academic hiring in a Ponzi scheme environment with excess graduates.
I was such a graduate. Stumbled into a project after my masters with no clue what the big picture was. But it turned out to be awesome. We were creating software that was planned to be developed and used by three universities. My professor's assistant had the vision, each of the three unis hired a guy just like me and we were supposed to design and implement everything. Turns out the other two had no clue about anything so I ended up doing pretty much everything while they were constantly busy doing random stuff for their bosses that had nothing to do with the project (very common thing as I learned over time).
It was such a great two years since I actually managed to finish the core functionality in a way that it was actually usable and not just a proof of concept good enough to make the ministry that funded the project happy.
I learned so so much during this time. I made a lot of mistakes, bad design decisions, but actually understood first hand why they were bad. There was minimal pressure from above, I was 99% running on intrinsic motivation. The professor didn't give a shit at all; he was really nice but I can't recall a single conversation with him about the project. His assistant had the final product in mind but since he was a mathematician with close to zero programming experience he gave me a lot of freedom, just made sure the overall direction I was heading was right, and giving valuable input regarding usability, stemming from years of experience of dealing with university staff. Oh yes, that also was a huge learning experience. Making sure professors and students from all the different faculties won't mess things up royally when interacting with some part of that system. What a little fool I was before that.
Maybe it's because it was the very first job I had, maybe because I was still a naive youngster living in a shared apartment not caring about money other than being able to pay rent and eat, but whenever I think back it still feels like the most enjoyable job I ever had.
I've worked as a "nonacademic" professional as well after my degree but before my faculty position. There there was less time for research but any research was highly encouraged. I also ironically felt more freedom as a grad student and postdoc for similar reasons.
Are you very confident in your skill that you have no worry of being unemployed at all ?
My personal opinion is that people who are not gifted but work very hard and have an average IQ can not take risks like leaving a tenure job unless they are free of financial responsibilities.
Having a "boss" is something that happens as a result of anything needing hierarchical organization, regardless of pay, though. I'm not sure if you've done much volunteer work, but there's pretty much always a string of people in charge and you'll still largely be taking orders to ensure that you and everyone else are actually contributing in a helpful way instead of just dicking around.
If you don't want a "job" you probably just want a hobby.
If you hate having a "boss", you can always become your own by starting a company.
In software, you can get into consulting and contract based work. That way you can be somewhat selective about your clients. Focusing on finding contracts where the work you do is contributing to something you value personally.
Having multiple clients also empowers you to feel like you can so "No" to a client without worrying that you will lose your only source of income.
Also, hobbies are a great way to offset the stresses that come from working on projects you do not enjoy. Spend your free time working on something you enjoy, simply for your own joy.
Also, word to the wise: It's important to remember that no matter your employment status, you are _always_ your own boss. It is your life you are living. Choose how you want to live it
Or try a hobby that doesn’t require work at all, but rather play, with friends. Simple stuff - throw a disk around at the park, play some cards against humanity, etc.
> Being a politician seems like it would feel meaningful, and they get paid solid six figure salaries.
There was an article I think on the New York times about how every representative and senator had to sit and call donors for money pretty much all day as in they have a quota to meet. Once you have donors, it is basically the same thing as having an employer I'd imagine. Especially with large donors.
I imagine self funded billionaires don't have that problem but then that's not limited to politics I would think
And, unless you're at the higher levels, politics doesn't pay especially well. In most states, serving in the state house of representatives isn't even a full-time position.
The notion that meaningful work is inversely correlated with pay is one of the most detrimental myths that prevent smart people from even starting to look for high-impact companies and roles. It's a convenient but weak excuse.
There's thousands of other companies we've vetted for Dolphin, a jobs app to find high-impact, high-paying work tackling everything from climate change to healthcare reform. We're still building out the MVP but feel free to stay updated at https://www.splashwithdolphin.com.
> The notion that meaningful work is inversely correlated with pay is one of the most detrimental myths that prevent smart people from even starting to look for high-impact companies and roles. It's a convenient but weak excuse.
"Meaningful work" does not mean soving social problems (as all your examples in some sense do). I know lots of great mathematicians and physicists who would find it magnitudes more meaningful to solve problems from their respective area, but could neither get a job in academia nor there exist companies where you can work on such questions.
There are many aspects that make a job more desirable: pay of course, but also how meaningful, interesting, flexible, safe, comfortable... it is.
So if you don't want to sacrifice on one aspect, like pay, some else will, and he will get the job. It is especially true if it doesn't require special skills you have.
The worst is if you are an expert in the field of your current well paying but boring job. All that expertise may not translate well into the "more meaningful" job you found. So not only you will be against people who are ready to get paid less but you will also be less competitive.
You’re generally correct, but unlike pay and flexibility (which are often zero-sum games) comfort and meaning are very individual. What is deeply uncomfortable or meaningless for one person might be tolerable and meaningful for another.
This means those four variables aren’t as summative as you make out.
Unpaid internships are tricky and something to avoid unless expectations are clear from both sides since the beginning. "I could come and go as I please", sometimes, is not compatible with somebody taking responsability and signing some documents that the intern must present somewhere, specially in fields with more offer than demand.
Plenty of stories in academia of the research being impactful and exactly what a researcher loves to do but they ultimately walk away from being wrung dry by a toxic boss.
I don't disagree with you, but when you said "one should find a job they're good at", what you really saying is "find a job that pays a lot that you can also do well".
I don't think working a boring high paying unfulfilling job inherently makes one happier than "saving the world", but having financial security and good work/life balance is certainly superior to working long hours, living paycheck to paycheck, and flirting with poverty.
> "If you think paying $1 for every $8 in funding for housing is too much, just move to a different city?"
What a useless, unconstructive comment. It's sad that when anyone wants to improve anything in this world, people like you come out of the bushes and say "if you don't like it, why don't you just move!"
> "There's a bunch of graphs showing rents increase, but no real reason for why that's a bad thing."
How thick and delusional can one be to say something like this? Have you taken a look at San Francisco recently? It's littered with homeless people and feces.
> Infinite high density cities aren't all necessarily the best thing
Right, because there's no medium between San Francisco and "infinite high density cities"
> "Maybe if you think too much money is disappearing in these wealthy people's vaults, raise taxes?"
A Land Value Tax would be a great idea. Further burdening the working class laborers who are already being raped by landlords with tax increases would only be more destructive.
Do you really believe homeless people will suddenly become not homeless if you build more houses? What are you going to do, give them to them?
Building more houses will do just one thing, let more people live there, which means more people will move in, maybe rents go down a little for rich programmers, and the homeless will stay homeless.
But yeah, please do complain both about feces in the streets and homeless people and taxes at the same time.
Building more homes is a “necessary but not sufficient” condition. @buss is also campaigning for more funding for affordable housing, but all the funding in the world is not worth squat if it’s not legal to build the homes.
> Congressmen are "experts at politics": the ability to make a decision WITHOUT being an expert in a subject.
Congressmen are experts at getting people to vote for them. The problem is that the people who step up to the challenge of winning this popularity contest aren't necessarily most qualified to be calling the shots.
I'd like to see more STEM workers in general running for office. They'd certainly pique my interest more than yet another lawyer.
Luddite. Electronic voting is inevitable, and far superior if done in a transparent untamperable way (eg. utilizing a publicly verifiable blockchain). I don't know why you guys have so much faith in paper voting when there are many instances of it being tampered with in even first world countries.
