
Don’t Do for Money What Others Do for Love - bjterry
https://medium.com/@ThatBJTerry/never-do-for-money-what-others-do-for-love-28351bfb2f4
======
geofft
Happiness isn't a fungible commodity. It's not a store of value. No job can
offer me happiness, just the possibility of happiness. When I go home, any
unrealized happiness from that day is gone. Any unspent money, however, goes
into my savings account.

If I work a well-paying tech job, I can save enough money that I don't have to
go in to _any_ job. My alternative isn't another job; it's no job at all.
Then, if I love software engineering, I can engineer software on my own free
of the constraints of the market. That saved money also provides potential
happiness, probably in a more reliable way.

> _Consider the job that you would do if you could no longer do your current
> work, or the job that would bring the most delight to your daily life. Does
> that job pay less? For most people, the answer to that question is also
> yes._

These first two are basically three different questions. If I could no longer
do my current job, I'd hunt for similar jobs that pay more. If I could no
longer do this type of work, _it wouldn 't be a good thing_, and I'd try to
find another high-paying career I'd be decent at. The job that would bring the
most delight to my daily life isn't a job at all, and it's very weird to weave
in the capitalistic assumption that life is determined by a job without also
accepting the truth that in a capitalist society, money is actually the best
way to bring yourself delight.

~~~
ghaff
There's advice that I think served me well at a point where I was at least
mulling trying to make a probably not very well paying/not very stable job out
of my hobby. Namely that, if you have the skills and background to get a well-
paying day job that gives you a lot of latitude to pursue hobbies on your own
terms that's a pretty good option. Which is pretty much what I've done.

Stop paying me tomorrow? Good luck with that even if I didn't need the
paycheck. But I enjoy it well enough and have plenty of time for other
activities. Would I prefer even more time? Yes. But the status quo is a
reasonable one for me.

~~~
geofft
Right. I'm speaking somewhat from experience: the last two times I switched
jobs, I took about six months off between them and lived off savings, enjoying
the process of just having the full day to do whatever I wanted (sometimes
writing code, sometimes just reading or playing video games or whatever). No
job can offer that, and I can do this a lot more easily than I can negotiate
even a part-time tech job. I am _also_ as happy with my day job as with any
other day job I can imagine, and I've sought out high-paying day jobs on
purpose.

~~~
ghaff
I've never felt that I was in a great situation to do that between jobs and
I've never felt strongly enough about it to take leave. I have run into a few
people who were able to negotiate an atypical amount of annual leave. One of
them was a lawyer who basically worked about half the year and traveled most
of the rest of the time. But that's very unusual and presumably isn't all that
stable over the course of a career.

------
dbatten
Obvious corollary: if you're lucky enough to love doing something useful that
most people would hate, you're likely well situated to get paid a lot for
doing that thing.

~~~
Bartweiss
Maybe the best advice this article could have given would be to _look_ for
those careers. Taking the job with the most money is reasonable, taking the
job job you love most is reasonable, but if we're talking economics then the
comparative advantage is in finding the job you like most _relative to
everyone else_.

On which note, I don't think it's an accident that some subdomains of
programming have really happy people making good money. Sure, it's work _they_
love, but optimizing compilers or whatever else appeals to few enough people
that it's a great fit for anyone who does like it.

~~~
ghaff
In general, in engineering, getting very good at some obscure specialty (which
is highly valued and you like well enough) is pretty good advice in general.
Of course, pick wrong--or don't be flexible enough--and you're the world's
performance expert in some computer architecture that's now obsolete or the
Y2K expert in 2001.

------
replicatorblog
The conflation of job types in this piece undercuts its thesis, which I think
it pretty good advice.

Seeking out a career in a kitchen, the entertainment business or any other
"tournament profession" is high-risk and likely to leave you with few skills
the market will reward.

On the other hand, getting a Ph.D. in life sciences seems like a pretty fool-
proof path to the upper-middle class. Sure, you may not be a Nobel Prize
winner, but I'd imagine in the worst case, you'd be pretty employable by
pharma companies.

The other examples are a bit weirder. The people who love to fly
recreationally typically aren't the ones manning the red-eye, or ferrying air
freight from Shenzen. In most cases, they're "Post-economic" if they can
afford to learn.

Likewise, I'm not sure anyone goes into the forest service for money.

Anyway, the author makes a good point, but muddles it with poor examples.

~~~
drpgq
"On the other hand, getting a Ph.D. in life sciences seems like a pretty fool-
proof path to the upper-middle class. Sure, you may not be a Nobel Prize
winner, but I'd imagine in the worst case, you'd be pretty employable by
pharma companies." I don't think that's true anymore.

~~~
shubb
Definitely too many phds for stable academic vacancies. Employable lifescience
specialists are still very employable in industry though.

~~~
RealityVoid
I just want to segway a little bit here, but when I though about doing a Phd I
not for once thought I want to stay in academia. I think it's silly the fact
that people associate phds with a career in academia, I always thought of it
like a means to become a deep expert in a certain field of study and the
opportunity to do innovative work in it, mostly by transitioning to private
industry. The way the Phd=career in academia became entrenched beats me
honestly.

------
ghaff
The other somewhat related corollary is that a lot of things you find are fun
as a hobby may not be so engaging as a full-time job--especially if you're not
sufficiently talented/lucky to be able to mostly do the job on your terms.

~~~
tonyedgecombe
Yes, doing things for money does have a tendency to suck the joy out of those
things.

~~~
ghaff
It's not so much about doing things for money. If you want to pay me for
whatever hobbies I would pursue in any case, I'll be happy to tell you where
to deposit the checks. Rather, it's that what I want to do even without being
paid for it is probably different from what someone will pay me to do.

I like doing photography and used to do it somewhat more seriously (and did
make beer money off of it in school which was nice). But I had no illusions
that I was likely to become a well-known globe-trotting nature or documentary
photographer--or perhaps that I would even enjoy that as a full-time
profession.

------
jimmies
My rule of thumb is any job that has any "star" the general public knows and
cheer for, don't bet your life's happiness on it. The more glamorous you see
the star, the worse off the average person is/the more improbable an average
person can make it. For example, rock star, movie star, star chef, star
youtuber, star blogger, star athlete, star politician, star Hacker news story,
star redditor, star 4chan memer, etc.

I haven't heard of a star lawyer, or star doctor, or star programmer that the
general public knows.

~~~
wgerard
> I haven't heard of a star lawyer, or star doctor, or star programmer that
> the general public know.

Ehh, I'm not sure I would agree with that. Sure, for the most part the really
successful ones pivot to become something else (typically to become
politicians, media personalities, and/or CEOs), but their original profession
remains a core part of their identity.

Off the top of my head, most people (older than 25, say) know who Johnnie
Cochran was. Ben Carson was pretty famous even before he entered politics.

And despite whatever he is now, Zuckerberg is still pretty much the poster boy
for programmer-turned-CEO. Heh, there's an entire movie about what a star
programmer he was.

~~~
jimmies
There is nothing super contradictory about Zuck that way... Zuckerberg isn't
rich and famous because he is good at programming. He is because he created a
successful social network called Facebook. He doesn't make money because he
programs now. He is rich because he is good at being a CEO of Facebook, and
neither the CEO job nor a successful social network is easy to get.

I don't think Zuck would list his job as being a programmer. He lists his job
as being a CEO. Same as Taylor Swift lists her job as being a
singer/songwriter. When someone dreams to create a successful social network
and become a CEO like Zuck, it's just as delusional as writing a hit song and
becoming a music star like Swift.

~~~
wgerard
> Zuckerberg isn't rich and famous because he is good at programming

I doubt we'll agree on this, so I'll agree to disagree and just leave it at
this:

I think he is. He was instrumental in programming the early and core product
of Facebook. Facebook wouldn't have become the monolith it is today without
his ability to program the very early versions.

Being a star programmer doesn't necessarily mean tackling self-driving
vehicles or the linux kernel, and it can very much blend into what looks like
traditional business decisions: Deciding what to build, what to
allow/disallow, etc.

Pop music is actually pretty similar in this regard: It's not well-known as a
technically difficult or especially avant-garde form of music, and being a pop
star is often not about the music as much as it is about everything else
surrounding the music (branding, marketing, etc.).

Still, we consider pop stars to be star musicians. Even when they don't write
their own music!

------
Dotnaught
Rewriting the headline as an exhortation rather than a warning we get:

For money, do what others hate.

But you can do what others love and get compensated if you're better than
amateurs (those who labor for love) and in an industry where your customers
can discern quality, care about it, and can afford it.

------
3pt14159
I was surprised that the article didn't cover counter examples: Jobs with high
pay to make up for their low delightfulness, low(ish) education level, and low
prestige.

1\. Mining engineer or technician in a remote region like Northern Canada.

2\. Electrician, plumber, or other skilled trade for the oil industry.

3\. Real estate agent in a reasonably well off area. Some may argue that this
isn't low prestige, but I'd counter that jobs where men have to get hair plugs
to stay competitive as they age isn't high prestige even if the work itself is
genteel.

4\. Taking clothes off for money (stripping, porn, prostitution, etc).

~~~
AnimalMuppet
Software engineer? High(ish) education level, high(ish) prestige. The
delightfulness varies from job to job, though...

------
JumpCrisscross
Commercially-minded industrialists regularly put artisans, who love their
crafts, out of work by driving down costs. Some of the things those who love
their work do aren’t meaningful to customers.

~~~
crdoconnor
>by driving down costs

More typically they do it by monopolizing distribution, not driving down
costs, although craft beer probably will not do well in a protracted recession
as consumers tighten their belts.

------
moate
The second anything becomes a job, it loses some of what makes it enjoyable.
When you "have" to go do something, even though you're not in the
mood/sick/whatever it's not fun anymore. The advantage people with hobbies
have, is that then can pause their hobby at any time and come back to it when
they feel like it. If it's your job, you've got to be there doing it. Everyone
loves sex, but most people don't want to be in porn.

The job that I want has nothing to do with what I'm doing at the job. It's a
collection of things that make my lifestyle of choice possible, and job
requirements that allow me to feel comfortable that I'm performing well and
not likely to get fired. At the same time, I understand there's going to be
plenty of times where I'm competing with some Ash Ketchum type (to be, the
very best, like no one ever was) who REALLY cares about the job on a different
level. That's fine. If they want the eager guy, they'll take him. If they
think my skills work better, they'll pick me. Get a marketable set of skills,
truly understand what they are, and then you'll be fine with jobs.

------
sakabaro
> Chefs / Pastry Chefs (Delightful): Lots of people love cooking or baking
> (including me!) and they think that means that it would be a good career.
> Unfortunately, based on the basic principles of supply and demand, this
> leads to more people wanting to be chefs than one would see if it didn’t
> look so fun. Too many cooks spoil the market for restaurant labor.

I am not sure if the author ever talked to a cook or a baker.

~~~
bjterry
You have a point (I'm the author). When I was young I had a few friends who
were line cooks at Olive Garden, and they didn't believe they were going to
have a great career staying in that kind of work. It was just a job that they
were able to get at an entry-level without any training. But I also have
multiple friends and family members who went to culinary school in hopes of
becoming chefs at their own restaurants. Mostly this has not turned out very
well financially for them. For the same amount of work if they had gone to
trade school, any of them could have a job that pays well.

Note this does not mean they'd be happier.

~~~
moate
First mistake: going to culinary school with the hopes of being a chef at
their own restaurant. I'm 3rd+ generation restaurant worker. Watch my mom go
bankrupt twice opening her own places. Restaurants are a completely
misunderstood industry because too many people forget it's a business first
and "cooking with love" second.

Quick story: My best friend in culinary school already had a BA in education
when she got into the field. She went the hotel route, got a masters in
Hospitality and now manages food/bev at a large Boston hospital. She loves
food and cooking, but she also realizes that it's a job first and that she can
always do her fun stuff at home.

Working as a cook/chef can be a great career, but most people have no clue
what the industry actually looks like when they start to gravitate towards it.
I don't think this is unique to that industry, just something most career
chefs recognize as part of what keeps the industry full of new bright eyed
idiots to burn out after a few months and pay low wages.

------
mattnewport
If it's true that non monetary compensation replaces monetary compensation for
these type of jobs then it's only good advice to not do them if that non
monetary compensation is worth less to you than the average person doing those
jobs. If that's all that was going on this advice wouldn't make sense unless
you were motivated by money over prestige and job satisfaction to an atypical
degree.

What's going on with these type of jobs is actually mostly just simple supply
and demand. Supply of labor at a given price is increased by the perceived
desirability of the work but that ignores both the demand side and the
qualifications / requirements on the job. These help explain the examples that
don't fit the overly simplified story in the article. Brad Pitt or Gordon
Ramsay for example do quite well for monetary compensation in fields listed
here because they are not easily substitutable. Doctors are still quite well
paid despite the prestige and "helping people" job satisfaction because supply
is restricted by licensing requirements.

------
andrewl
Hi make some good points, although he also refers to the profession of
teaching as prestigious, which it is not. At least not in the United States,
unfortunately.

~~~
tomhoward
Perhaps not prestigious, but appreciated ("devoting your life to helping
kids... that's wonderful!"), which must be a major factor that keeps people
doing it, given the modest remuneration and difficulty/stress of the work
(along with nursing and other welfare work).

------
henrik_w
Counter point: I love programming, but it also pays very well (due to value it
creates, and supply/demand for programmers)

~~~
cix_pkez
The programming I love and web development are very different things.

Sadly, the latter is the most prevalent.

~~~
SketchySeaBeast
That's a super important clarification. I'm sure a lot of us loved algorithm
optimizations and solving fun problems, but for the majority of us programming
devolves down to "Modify a CRUD website template for the next 20-35 years".

~~~
meritt
And that desire to work on algorithm optimizations and solving fun problems is
why we have such utterly complex web development toolchains today.

~~~
cix_pkez
I actually agree totally, but perhaps not for your intended reason.

I have a hunch that the clear syntax and relative simplicity of web
programming is what drives a certain kind of developer to long for complexity
and turn something simple into this: `user.public? && (current_user.try(:test)
? user.test? : !user.test?)`

~~~
SketchySeaBeast
Yeah, that's something that a developer learns better as he gains experience,
but as a younger dev I know that I craved complexity for complexities sake,
and to prove that I COULD work with complexity. I've since grown out of that.

------
ksk
A counter (somewhat) : [http://yosefk.com/blog/fun-wont-get-it-
done.html](http://yosefk.com/blog/fun-wont-get-it-done.html)

Its not important, but I happen to agree with most of it.. :)

------
CalRobert
Very well put.

tl;dr - any job that has teenagers dreaming of doing it is almost definitely a
terrible career choice. You'll be trying to get paid for a job that others
want to do for free. Of course, they tell themselves it's only until the get
established, but there's always another crop of chumps finishing school.

I say this as the spouse of someone who dreamed of working in museums and is
now bitterly disappointed at how museums/heritage/academia treat its people.
Sure, they could have known ahead of time, but we all make mistakes.

Funny enough, I have a pretty good gig at a video game company at the moment,
but doing very not-video-game specific things. To be honest you can really
tell that the people whose skills are focused on Unity and C# are more
stressed out than the ones who know Python and AWS and can pretty much walk in
to another job.

~~~
su8898
Sorry got confused at the C#/Unity part. Did you mean Unity and C# are
terrible career choices at the moment as opposed to Python/AWS?

~~~
brad0
I assumed he did. AWS is transferable to most fields in tech these days. Unity
is niche to video games. C# isn’t used in as many fields as python for sure.

~~~
CalRobert
Exactly - thanks for writing it for me. If you're a "Unity Developer" you're
pretty much restricted to games, a volatile and difficult industry.

~~~
justinhj
In my experience as a game developer over 25 years, it’s volatile for
businesses but not for individuals, as long as your skills are in demand

------
samastur
I take issue with "The reason for both of these is because delightfulness is
part of what you are being paid."

Unless you would do your current job even you weren't paid at all, then that
is not really true. What we do, is negotiate the balance between discomfort
and money. It might be a good deal for you personally, but you are still
giving up some satisfaction.

------
kristianc
> Consider the work you do. If you love your job, and particularly if you love
> that type of work more than anyone else you work with, would you keep doing
> it for a modest pay cut? Really think about the answer to this question.
> I’ll wait.

When the writer of a piece tells me what to do like this, my first instinct is
actually to close the tab.

~~~
liveoneggs
Consider why you feel that way. I'll wait.

~~~
kreetx
I think he folded the comment tree.

------
qntty
*unless the money is very good

~~~
LandR
I disagree. I feel chasing money is a sure fire way to end up miserable. If
you don't get there, you were doing something that was making you unhappy for
nothing. If you do get their and up rich, you might find the money doesn't
really bring you what you were after anyway.

It seems a dangerous gamble.

~~~
enkiv2
Yeah. The article kind of bothered me by assuming that its reader is trying to
maximize profit, rather than maximize happiness with a sustainable income.

I love to code. I code for a living. If UBI was established, I would quit my
job and code for free, because being told what to do is inherently
frustrating.

------
xexers
Is this article a total rip off of a reddit thread from yesterday?

[https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/8aqs7q/whats_a_j...](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/8aqs7q/whats_a_job_that_pays_way_less_than_people_think/)

EDIT: I'm an idiot. The author mentions this fact. I should really read the
full article.

~~~
bjterry
It is a response to it, which I, the author, call out in the 7th paragraph.

------
matte_black
TL;DR: The more lovable a job is, the more ripe it is for taking advantage of
those who want to do it.

