
Elites embrace “do what you love” mantra. But it devalues work & hurts workers - RougeFemme
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2014/01/do_what_you_love_love_what_you_do_an_omnipresent_mantra_that_s_bad_for_work.html
======
reuven
I'm totally OK with "do what you love," so long as it's followed by, "So long
as you can afford to do so."

I often tell my children that I'm incredibly fortunate to work in a field that
I love, and for which there is demand. Most people, I say, work in order to
make money, which is totally reasonable and legitimate, but means that they're
doing things they don't necessarily enjoy.

So yes, I'm privileged, in that people pay me to do what I love. And I think
that in our age, a large number of people can be similarly privileged.

But it shouldn't be an expectation, but rather an aspiration, to be able to
work in something that you love. And if you can't work in something that you
love, then it's more than respectable and reasonable to do something that
brings in sufficient income to feed, clothe, and house your family -- and, one
can hope, gives you enough time to pursue the hobbies and interests that you
do love, and about which you can be passionate.

~~~
slurry
I think it's interesting that you love what you do and also work in a high
demand field. I don't think those are actually coincidental.

All the chemical engineers I know (I know a few) are pretty happy. Most find
their work interesting.

All the humanities academics I know (I know very many, having been one in a
former life) are more or less unhappy. Many find their day to day work
uninteresting and unexciting.

Chemical engineering is a high-demand field. Not many people's dream job.

Humanities academia is a low-demand field. Many people's dream job.

I think "work in a high demand field" is better advice for any young person
than "do what you love," with or without qualification. Especially if they are
the sort of young person who wants to be passionate and interested in their
work.

Doing the hyperspecialized Hot Field of the Day may be a bad idea, but
perennials like [software] engineering, K-12 education, finance, nursing,
medicine etc. are generally going to be the best use of an intelligent
student's time.

Low-demand fields mean a lot of down time due to lack of funding or lack of
employment. That kills passion. High-demand fields mean there's always
something to do and a new problem to solve. I think that's more important for
actually loving what you do.

~~~
taeric
This ignores that often the high demand is there because it is a tough job for
folks to do. Not everyone can physically/mentally do any job. Even if they
would love to do so. That you know successful people appears at face value to
simply be survivorship bias.[1]

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias)

~~~
slurry
Academia, nonprofit work, the arts and other low-demand "dream" jobs are also
extremely demanding and not possible for everyone to do.

My argument was that being one of the (high percentage of) chemical engineers
with a job is better than being one of the (low percentage of) humanities
academics with a job. I'll acknowledge that survivorship bias is a potential
problem.

Do you think humanities PhD washouts are generally happier than Chem E
washouts?

~~~
taeric
My argument is that the "high percentage of chemical engineers" are the
survivors. I knew quite a large number of chemical engineers that failed out
of college. Or, amusingly enough, had to switch majors to a humanities degree.
:)

So, if your point is to strive high at what you are good at, provided that
what you are good at is in demand, then yeah. Kind of easy to see. If your
point is to simply pick an in demand position and be good at it, that is a bit
tougher.

~~~
slurry
Cut policies at chem e programs are brutal and I sympathize. However, an
unsuccessful chem e student who becomes a coder, or uses his prereqs to get
into nursing school or become a K-12 teacher is still following my advice.
It's not about which specific field, it's about what kind of probability
distribution of finding a job in a field.

~~~
taeric
But you are completely ignoring all of the kids that are just drop outs. Those
that don't ever get a degree, because they got their asses handed to them in
pursuit of one.

And, as I said, more amusingly, you do not count the folks that started in
chemE only to switch to humanities. Just pursuing a degree in a desirable
degree is by no means a guarantee that you will get a good job. Just as merely
throwing a dart in the general direction of the board is no guarantee that you
will hit it.

~~~
slurry
a. My bad for using chem e as an example. Switch in K-12 teachers instead and
the comparison vs. humanities academics works out about the same, modulo more
complaints about working conditions.

b. Humanities PhD programs _also_ have enormous dropout rates. And many
dropouts also end up in bad shape. I'm ignoring them too, so in the context of
the breathtakingly unscientific anecdote, it's even.

c. Besides which, survivorship bias is probably not even in the top three
things that make my personal anecdote not a valid scientific experiment. It's
obviously not good empirical evidence for many other reasons.

Look, the basic point is, fields that people "love" but which are very hard to
get jobs in, such as academia, the arts, architecture, nonprofit human
services work, journalism, modeling, video game design, etc. do not tend to
actually make them happy in my personal observation and experience. Another
point is that I think people in high-demand fields tend to have more life
satisfaction.

Things I did not address: getting a degree vs. getting a job/career; are the
humanities terrible?; which specific high-demand career should one choose?;
what happens if one can't hack chem e/nursing school?

I don't know the answers to most of those questions. Failing out of nursing
school? I really don't know what to tell you. Would it have been better if you
passed as a fine arts major? Possibly. But I'm more concerned about careers
than about degrees here. If you graduate with a fine arts degree and go into
banking you may be better off than the nursing school dropout, if you try to
seriously pursue a career as a sculptor you are probably going to be worse
off, unless you have family money.

I really am not offering advice on what career to choose, besides pointing to
one big superclass of jobs that are probably a bad idea to pursue and another
big superclass that are probably a better idea.

Sorry this got stuck on chem e. I don't know any chiropractors, otherwise I
would have used them.

~~~
taeric
I should have been clearer myself on some of this. I think the "do what you
love" proponents are pretty much a poster child of survivor bias. Doesn't
matter what you are attaining to, if you are able to get it, you are likely
decently happy with yourself. If you failed at one thing and switch gears to
another out of necessity, it is not that surprising that you would be less
happy about it.

Consider the rock stars of academia in CS. Most are fairly happy and well off
people with (or without, to their desire) families. Same for many studio
artists. Not just the rock stars.

I think I get what you are saying, though. That to a large extent it is
supply/demand. It is easier to attain a job if those two values are at least
closer to equal than otherwise. Sports/musician/artist/professor/etc, in
particular, are atrociously bad choices, just by the numbers.

I just fear that knowing which fields have a high demand is not enough to
decide what field to go for. Many of them have higher demand than supply due
to very valid reasons of physicality or mental difficulty. Though, I fully
agree that this is a better decision attribute than "what do you love to do?"

------
eli_gottlieb
Oh boy. Anarchism on HN. Time for my flame-proof suit.

Actually, I agree with basically everything written here. The definition of
"work" is "instrumentally useful activities that don't match our final
desires". Trying to force your career to be a final desire, by altering your
career or altering your desires, _sounds_ noble but simply can't work for the
vast range of occupations that genuinely are instrumentally necessary to make
the world run.

Anyone who demands that you have a life-changing passion for digging ditches,
flipping burgers, or writing SQL joins is a jerk. Careerism is a subgoal
stomp.

~~~
ansgri
> The definition of "work" is "instrumentally useful activities that don't
> match our final desires"

Could you please give the source for the "quote"?

~~~
eli_gottlieb
That one's mine, actually.

------
pnathan
I agree with the initial premise, but disagree with the class warfare premises
later on in the article.

DWYL is a proverb sold by Hollywood, fiction, non-fiction, speeches, news,
parents, older friends who are successful, etc.

The fundamental problem is that most work is scut work that very - _very_ \-
few people enjoy. Throwing trash out. Handling DMV paperwork. Roofing houses.
The list goes on. The dreams we have are far, far different: CEO, fashion
model, rock star, game designer, writer, race car driver. That list goes on.

Regrettably, this is a place where supply and demand become actualized
reality: when everyone (or lots of people) wants to be a rock star, the market
won't support it. Worse, certain professions don't have a average high demand
on good days (writer). But, what is the right choice under DWYL? Pick the
thing you want to be. Then, chances of that not working are high, so then you
wind up with an unwanted job. "I don't deserve this". Or, underpaid.

I saw this many times in college and high school. We - my friends and I - all
had bought into the DWYL ideal. Zero of us attained it, to the best of my
knowledge today. We found other things along the way that satisficed us. I
still remember my old friend who has worked in a (nearly) minimum wage job at
a department store for maybe ten years (I hope he has broken into management).
He was going to be a rock star, so education wasn't useful. It was a waste.
The conflation of DWYL and real life rarely work out.

I don't advise anyone to DWYL. I advise a grim analysis of the job prospects
and likely outcomes, and determining choices based upon that. If you're
willing to be paid minimum wage and have to struggle through your life and
have to ask your spouse to support you and work full-time - go on - be the
Creative Writing major focusing on "fine art" writing as your profession.

The author points up another aspect: Work - all honest work - has dignity.
Bringing home value for value has inherent worth, whether you shovel poop at a
zoo or become a director at a Fortune 100 company. Selling DWYL as an ideal
removes dignity from unlovable and unwanted work.

Count the costs: sometimes selling all you have for the pearl is worth it.
Inform your choices and prepare for the financial and life costs.

There's a joke - a successful musician is one who only has to be a _part-time_
barista.

~~~
presorted
Through lots of study of psychology and sociology, I've changed from believing
in do-what-you-love to believing in doing anything useful for mankind (but
which has some interest for you) with people that you love (i.e., role
models). Psychological flourishing has so many ties to our feedback from our
social capital. The do-what-you-love mantra is too self-focused to really
capture our requirements for total happiness. I've witnessed many people
pursue their careers surrounded by assholes, living in misery, despite working
on what they really like. Girls have it right by avoiding the tech industry
(which has few role models for them, even if they like the subject matter).

------
nickthemagicman
I agree with this article and love it but take it one step further.

I think doing 'what you love' is a failed premise for several reasons.

a>When you turn your passion into a job your passion becomes a job.

b>You only 'think' you love it. Your social circles have conditioned you to
love a certain subject. An inner city kid is going to be more likely
interested in the NBA and Rapping, than social media and solar power. Just
like the average person from the middle east will be more interested in Islam
than the average person from the South. (Stereotypes can be proven by
statistics.)

c>You will change. As you get older think of all the new things you've fallen
in love with. New passions. New interests. And the things you have fallen out
of love with. I'm not convinced people are static enough to love 'one thing'
for 40 years.

I think what people really want out of a career is freedom. Intellectual
freedom, freedom to manage their time,prestige, respect, expertise, etc.

I think these are the things one should be pursuing instead of doing 'what you
love'.

~~~
darkxanthos
"You only think you love it." Feels close enough. ;)

"I'm not convinced people are static enough to love 'one thing' for 40 years."
Who said anything about sticking with the same career for 40 years? As my
interests have changed, I've changed my profession. My profession lags which
is less than ideal but it's still worked quite well for me.

Why do you find it necessary to define what the general masses "really" want
out of a career? It sounds like you know what you want and if you don't care
to "DWYL" that's fine. That's you.

~~~
nickthemagicman
Once you commit years of education to a particular field and years of worktime
and experience the 'momentum' of your direction in life can get pretty hard to
shift.

You passion for being a veterinarian turns to 'just a job'.

~~~
darkxanthos
I get that. I'm almost 32 and had been doing software development priors to
becoming an analyst where my coding skills weren't even inquired upon during
my interview.

It's been hard psychologically as I try to define my role outside of building.

So you're right it's hard but it's possible if you're a) lucky and b)
committed.

------
kabdib
Oh yes. The elite that "love their physics and science" and so on. Who needs
the technology that makes modern agriculture possible? What drives doctors and
students through grueling training? Who builds world-spanning transportation
and communication networks? If you enjoy your work, or you are damned good at
it, then you must be exploiting someone?

Stratification exists. It's going to continue to exist. The "solutions" to it
have historically been worse than the disease.

Can we do better? Sure. Can we make them worse than they are? This article
certainly points in that direction.

I have a great job and a career that I love, and I give to charities that I
think are worthwhile. I could do more, sure. But I'm not going to find work as
a dishwasher [done that!] or on a farm just because other people are stuck in
those jobs.

~~~
taeric
So, I'm not entirely sure what you are saying. Relying on the work of others
is not exploitation. Embracing a philosophy that essentially erases their
existence is rather brash and betrays a sense of exploitation, though.

Essentially, don't presume that if you are in the upper stratosphere that your
fortune to "do what you love" is some sort of directive that has made you
successful. That, if all of those "lower and presumably unhappy" people would
just "follow their love" they would be successful.

Instead, be grateful for what you are able to do. While it is certainly great
to continue to pitch in when and where you can, I think it is more important
to acknowledge the humanity and dignity of those still doing other jobs.
Especially if there are jobs that you find so terrible as dishwashing. Be
incredibly thankful there is someone that will _still do it_ and do not demean
them by saying if they would "only do what they love they would find success."

------
robgibbons
This article is the result of greatly over-thinking a good and ultimately
innocent thing.

"Do what you love" is not the latest Agile methodology. It is not a political
philosophy, or some new moral treatise claiming to be your personal
salvation... nor is it an underhanded attack on Labor or the hardworking
people your grandfather rubbed elbows with.

"Do what you love" is a simple, honest phrase intended only to remind you that
you can, in fact, be happy while making money, if you can manage to find work
doing something you love. Not everyone can, of course, but that doesn't
diminish the meaning or intention of this wall-plaque motto.

This journalist needs to start taking some attivan or something.

EDIT: The fact that this journalist was paid to write this article, while
obviously taking pleasure in over-thinking every possible corner, is proof
that you can Do What You Love and the world won't end.

~~~
equalarrow
Yah, I got the same feeling too. Like, the author needs to step back and take
a deep breath.

First off, I'm not an elite. Second, I don't think 'elites' (whomever they may
be) are saying this so people become reality distortion-ified and just zombie
off to devalue themselves making straw birdies because they love stick art the
most. That's silly.

Instead, I look at some people like Elon Musk or Richard Branson or Jobs or
Peter Diamandis as ones that have made their own way previously doing or
currently doing what they love. For me it seems, once you clear away the FUD,
that you are confident on your own self, realize you have little time on this
planet, and therefore you see no value in wasting your time helping someone
else pursue their dreams.

I must also add that this is not just captains of industry either. There are
so many doctors, educators, and scientists around the world that I'm sure love
what they do and actually do make an impact. I would encourage anyone to go on
Youtube or Netflix, etc, and find a documentary about planning a mission to
Mars or even launching a satellite. So many of these people think in terms of
decades and it's unbelievable that they can create machines, put them into
space, and collect data that expands the understanding of all humanity. Any
time I watch one of these, I am just blown away by the people who do this.
They are truly on another level and thinking in terms of mankind and not just
'me'. I don't see any elitism or devaluing of ones labor or mental faculties
_at_ _all_..

I look back on my life and see two passions that emerged: music and
programming. Luckily for me, both of these things are still highly lucrative
and highly expressive. I also love astronomy, philosophy, physics,
construction, cooking, and more. I could probably pick any one of these and
really _love_ doing them (I actually did for construction for a while -
building physical things with your hands and tools is awesome).

For me, it all comes down to being in love with life. I bet if you ask any
person that's excelled in their industry (or like Branson and Musk) what they
think about life, they will probably tell you it's beautiful and they love it.
Perhaps it's because they're successful, but it doesn't matter. Your mind and
your mindset are your greatest tools and channeling creativity and
determination through a focused mind can lead to great things.

I wonder if the author loves writing? Critiques are fine, but does their story
inspire anyone to do anything? Or is it just to help keep people in the same
mindset of negativity and division? I've made some negative posts here on HN
and I'll be the first one to say, yah, dumb. Whether it's a bad day or just
getting wrapped up on others negativity, in the end it serves no purpose to
actually bring about any change for good. It just joins the chorus of
negativity and goes no where.

So, ultimately, I couldn't disagree more with the author. If anything I think
people that do what they love (calling them elite's also just serves to
simplify and brand as bad) and are successful doing it are some of the highest
examples of what we could aspire to be or achieve.

~~~
mempko
Just ask Musk, or Jobs if they would do what they love (running a company) for
peanuts while on welfare. They will then spin you a tail that people who own,
or who bring "value" should get what they deserve.

The thing is, they will choose to work at walmart over living on the street...

------
jupiterjaz
Sometimes I feel like "do what you love" is a kind of psychic barrier-to-entry
for certain fields. People say "you really have to love this field in order to
be successful at it". Which implies that just being hardworking, disciplined,
and determined to improve aren't enough. You have to love practicing the craft
more than food, sleep, sex, or any other hobby or recreation imaginable. You
have to feel like you were born to do it and when you aren't that's all you
can think about. That the idea of a perfect day is 16 hours at the task with
as little time as possible left over for anything else like food or sleep.

That's what comes to my mind when people tell me "make sure you love this
stuff before you try to become a professional. You wont succeed otherwise."

~~~
rythie
Isn't this just an effect of supply and demand? with so many people wanting to
be actors or musicians, working for almost nothing, how can you compete in
that market if you don't love it?

~~~
chippy
That's right - the article is also saying that because there are many people
who love doing it - that they would be willing to be paid less than someone
who doesn't want.

It's competition between workers perhaps?

------
didgeoridoo
Scott Adams (of "Dilbert") has been rumbling publicly about this subject for
the past year or so:
[http://www.dilbert.com/blog/entry/follow_your_passion/](http://www.dilbert.com/blog/entry/follow_your_passion/)
and
[http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304626104579121...](http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304626104579121813075903866?mobile=y)

Ricardo Semler is the CEO of Semco, a multinational manufacturing
conglomerate, who has also wrestled with the concept of "passion", especially
as applied to assembly-line workers. For some, the ability to grow in
expertise and quality of work is what drives the passion, not the content of
the work itself. For others, passion lies in the off-hours activities that
their factory job makes possible.

Not hiring a great worker because he lacks passion for the job function is
short-sighted. That worker may just be maximizing his pursuit of "doing what
you love" outside the 9-to-5.

------
incision
This article seems a bit overwrought for what, in my opinion, is not a
terribly dangerous idea.

I'd be more concerned with what I feel is perhaps a cousin to this - popular
notions about work, success and risk-taking.

Basically, the idea that glorifies people who have succeeded in facing
relatively benign risks as examples for the purpose of deriding people who are
unwilling to face more serious ones as being somehow unworthy.

The most recent, well-known example of this was probably Mitt Romney [0], but
every time someone wonders why poor people who live in bad neighborhoods don't
"just move" it's the same thing on a smaller scale.

0: [http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/05/01/1087833/-Mitt-
Romne...](http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/05/01/1087833/-Mitt-Romney-says-
take-a-risk-by-starting-a-business-it-worked-for-Tagg#)

------
hawkharris
Workers should always follow their passions and do what they love...on nights
and weekends:

[http://www.theonion.com/articles/find-the-thing-youre-
most-p...](http://www.theonion.com/articles/find-the-thing-youre-most-
passionate-about-then-do,31742/)

------
icegreentea
It's totally one of those "toy ideals". Just like "always do the right thing".
How the hell are you suppose to know what the right choice is? Maybe DWYL
could be more realistically stated as "don't do what you despise", but even
then, it's questionable.

I mean, its definitely popular because it "works" in so many ways. It tells
you to seek employment doing things that you at least enjoy, and also tells
you that if your employed doing something you don't enjoy, you -should- find a
way to make it enjoyable, and even implies that things you love will be able
to sustain you. It's brilliant! And by sheer weight of repetition, it goes
from something prescribed or something to challenge yourself towards (this is
something that everyone has to deal with) to normative (this is something that
is normal). And really, it's that switch that's most insidious.

It's one thing to suggest that we all try reach a bit further than maybe we
can grasp. It's another thing to create an atmosphere where everyone thinks
that everyone else is capable of grasping anything they reach, and they're the
only one who quite make it.

I am in my final year of engineering school right now (final term!). My class
is pretty tight, and there's a lot of "class love" statements flying around. I
do not quite feel so strongly. I'm the type of person who is pretty confident
in their abilities, but a little insecure in who I am. And these "class love"
statements ding away at me everytime. It's a totally innocent statement, and
those who are saying it (probably) totally believe and feel it, and
objectively, it's probably even true. But I don't really feel it, and
everytime I hear and read it, it dings away at me a bit. What did I do wrong?
Why don't I feel this? They're not overtly trying to hurt me (they might not
even know that), but it's happening. And this is even with the self-awareness
that these types of statements are kinda silly, and kinda toy-like.

I'm going to be a lucky person (at least for the shortterm), and am going to
go work in an environment where I'll enjoy (if not love) my work. I can't
imagine the sheer annoyance (at the very least) bound up in people who aren't
in that position.

------
allochthon
The author is perceptive in identifying the large swaths of unrecognized labor
that are necessary to make creative work possible. And she makes an
interesting point about how the mantra of "do what you love" can lead to
career moves that have unintended consequences for the people making them,
including those in academia and those pursuing internships in fields that are
saturated with talent, in which they're bound to be paid very little for a
long time. But she goes too far in attributing responsibility to the idea that
we should be doing what we love.

She shows her sympathy for this idea at the very end:

 _If we acknowledged all of our work as work, we could set appropriate limits
for it, demanding fair compensation and humane schedules that allow for family
and leisure time. ... And if we did that, more of us could get around to doing
what it is we really love._

If her main point is that people should demand fair compensation, I agree. Her
angle seems to be that people should not naively be led into submitting to
unpromising, low-wage employment because of romantic notions such as "do what
you love." They should not unwittingly allow themselves to become tools for
other people's financial betterment. But I think she misidentifies what has
led to problems she describes and in doing so has underestimated the
challenge. The main culprits for all of the very-low-end jobs are as likely to
be automation, globalization, and a lack of regulation of large corporations
and the financial services industry. Pushing back on low wages by being
conscious of how "do what you love" can be used as a tool underpay people is
sound personal advice, but I do not think it will go very far to fix things at
a societal level.

------
snomad
I like Martin Luther King Jr's version of DWYL.

From "What Is Your Life's Blueprint?"

And when you discover what you will be in your life, set out to do it as if
God Almighty called you at this particular moment in history to do it. don't
just set out to do a good job. Set out to do such a good job that the living,
the dead or the unborn couldn't do it any better

If it falls your lot to be a street sweeper, sweep streets like Michelangelo
painted pictures, sweep streets like Beethoven composed music, sweep streets
like Leontyne Price sings before the Metropolitan Opera. Sweep streets like
Shakespeare wrote poetry. Sweep streets so well that all the hosts of heaven
and earth will have to pause and say: Here lived a great street sweeper who
swept his job well.

If you can't be a pine at the top of the hill, be a shrub in the valley. Be a
bush if you can't be a tree. If you can't be a highway, just be a trail. If
you can't be a sun, be a star. For it isn't by size that you win or fail. Be
the best of whatever you are.

~~~
VLM
Isn't the punchline of that joke something like "because increasing some rich
crook's bonus depends on your gullibility and servility"

The TLDR is something like that bumper sticker which is something like "work
hard today, a bazzillion people on welfare depend on you" Where a bazzillion
is whatever minimal delta the design needed to avoid paying royalties, I
suppose?

------
raphaelb
For me, DWYL has always not meant "forget about whatever else is going on in
the world and do your own thing", like their example of forgoing finance & law
to study Norse mythology.

I always figured it was a perhaps incomplete counter to a previous time where
there was an expectation you should not enjoy what you do. Many people talk
about hating their work, etc. Perhaps it goes too far in the opposite
direction and implies a selfish view, but in my opinion we needed a little bit
of that move in this direction. Maybe we went too far and it needs to be
adapted to something else, such as "Do what you love, that also has value to
society" or something.

I definitely agree with the digs against off the clock "well you should love
what you do, so keep doing it for free!" stuff though.

------
mindcrime
That is absolutely one of the worst articles I've ever read. It's nothing but
bad metaphors, questionable analogies, confused reasoning, and unfounded
assertions all muddled together into what seemingly purports to be some kind
of defense of the value of low-wage, low-skill, manual-labor work.

WTF?

The author assumes that anything somebody could "love" must be something
"creative" and must be intellectual work... ignoring even the possibility that
some people actually do love their manual jobs. Oh sure, they might wish they
made more money, or wish they had more freedom and flexibility, and that might
drive them to change jobs... but that doesn't mean that some people don't
enjoy farming or working in factories or what-have-you.

The author also seems to assume a society based on Plato's idea that your
career is picked for you at birth, and where you aren't allowed to change. But
clearly we don't live in that world. If you're working on a factory floor, and
_hate_ it, then "DWYL" is an _aspiration_ \- a reason to work a little harder,
volunteer for extra shifts, save more aggressively, and do whatever it takes
to enable you to escape the factory floor and create the opportunity to
"DWYL".

I could go on, but what's the point? This article just adds nothing useful to
the world, IMO.

------
wh-uws
Do what you love... that people will pay you to do

^ I always felt like that quote was missing something

You gotta understand and research.

How many people are in that field? What are their qualifications? How do you
stack against them? How many openings do they have each year? What
seasons/quarters/times do they hire in? Will you be able to be the best
candidate and show that in an interview at that time?

What do people who graduate with that major make? What area(s) do the top
people in that field congregate? Can you afford to live there with or without
at job? If you lose one what's the market like for the next? Do you even want
to live there?

What's the culture of that industry? Are they straight laced corporate suits
who make all their decisions on a golf course? Are they creatives? Hackers who
could care less how they dress? Are you or do you want to become like these
people?

If you don't pay attention to these variables and more its likely that you
will end up very unhappy "doing what you love".

If you do and you find something where you can marry doing what you love with
a sustainable wage... now that is when you're on your way to happiness.

------
dreamdu5t
I'm sick of people telling me I'm elite or privileged because I have a job as
software engineer. Fuck you Miya Tokumitsu.

As if the journalists for rags like Slate aren't elitist bourgeoisie...

------
nnq
> If we acknowledged all of our work as work, we could set appropriate limits
> for it, demanding fair compensation and humane schedules that allow for
> family and leisure time.

a true gem quote imho

------
BjoernKW
While I agree that 'Do what you love.' bears a certain danger of disregarding
those who aren't fortunate enough to be able to do so - pretty much like
blaming homelessness and poverty on people's laziness - I don't like the
attitude this article conveys.

First, nobody in their right mind would scorn a factory worker or anybody else
with a 'menial' job for not doing what they love. "You don't have to be a
factory worker you can become an artist, a painter, a successful entrepreneur
any time you want. You're just too lazy." Saying something like that would be
completely ridiculous.

More importantly this attitude favours apathy or laziness of the mind:

"Other people are worse off than you so be happy with what you got."

"First world problem."

"People in third world countries are starving while you're complaining about
your job."

"Other people hate their job, too."

Statements like these promote some kind of slave moral. You have to toil
because other people's lives suck, too. In this mindset actively trying to
change your life for the better means betraying those who are less fortunate
than you.

Perhaps Steven Covey more properly expressed what I consider to be the true
meaning of 'Do what you love.':

"Find your own voice and help others find theirs."

~~~
Zancarius
After reading your comment, I find it curious that this submission from Slate
isn't too far behind "Your most important skill: Empathy" [1] by Chad Fowler.
It seems the general gist of the attitude "You're better off than X% of the
population, so be happy" is rather lacking in empathy, is it not?

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7084299](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7084299)

------
polskibus
Good article, perhaps could've been extended with a more common example. For
instance, a person that chooses to work in a startup instead of a wall street
bank. DWYL is a very good tool that's exploited by many: small firms and
corporations. I'd say you should in general find your vocation as early in
your life as you can but allow yourself to sidestep sometimes for money or
horizon expanding opportunities.

------
AKifer
I think that what you love is not fixed but can change anytime. Maybe you can
be an employee and loving building something with your co-workers. Once you
have the necessary experience and means, you can embrace your own thing and
make other people loving it and benefiting from. At least tech capitalism is
not like industrial capitalism where the factory worker could never set up his
own business (though it happened but rarely). Now you can love being a part of
a startup or a big corp and being paid well, and being able to launch your own
dream as well when you feel the time has come for it. Jobs has talentuous
workers like John Ive to build his dream but that doesn't mean that John Ive
would eternally stay an Apple worker. When will come the time he feels he can
embrace his own thing, he's free to go. And that's already true with Nest guys
story. I just think what's unethical is telling all the time DWYL while you
don't give your collaborators and employees the chance to live their dreams
one day.

------
lorenzsell
This article went in depth about the author's perspective on the social
implications of doing what you love based on the author's definition of DWYL.
She didn't examine her definition or delve into what the expression might
mean, or how the people that use it might mean it. For all her research, it
doesn't seem like she asked even one person - "what does this expression mean
to you?"

Doing what you love isn't about what you do, it's about the relationship you
have with what you do. Whether you're working a menial job or running a
company, the love is in the self awareness. The love is in knowing why you do
what you do and how it affects the world around you.

Understanding why you do what you do is not a privilege reserved for the
elite. Aspiring to do work that is meaningful to you, that allows you to fully
explore and cultivate the things you're interested in, is what makes us human.

------
Zigurd
It's odd that the article frames "doing what you love" as a "privilege." The
real reason it isn't practical in many cases is that being able to do what you
love in many cases puts you in highly competitive elite pursuits. These
pursuits require love, talent, and lots of work, or you won't make it.

I don't find too many people ungrateful for the "privilege" of doing what they
love. Mostly they feel fortunate or just tired from beating the competition.

On the other hand, the Japanese are trying very hard to robotize those home
care jobs they mention. Training people for jobs that won't be there seems
like a recipe for resentment and possibly revolution.

"Do what you love" may not be the correct answer. But training people to do
low-end labor (that we are working to automate away) so they won't burden the
tax-paying love-what-we-do-and-get-paid-well-to-do-it class seems...
dishonest.

~~~
eli_gottlieb
>the tax-paying love-what-we-do-and-get-paid-well-to-do-it class

There is no such class. Not everyone in a six-figure job loves it. In fact,
most of them don't.

~~~
Zigurd
Singin' the first world problem blues.

~~~
eli_gottlieb
Well yeah. And actually, I _don 't_ make six figures, so _there._ Point being,
yes, doing something you actually love is a privilege. Most people work to
earn a living, including most of the financially fortunate. We can try to
change that fact, but we can't ignore it or wish it away.

------
yetanotherphd
It's hard to extract anything useful from an article that assume that wages
are set by rhetoric, and not supply and demand.

The reason people in the "lovable-work" camp make more money, is that their
skills have lower supply and higher demand. This in turn is because these jobs
tend to require more intellectual and creative skills.

------
persona
The author starts it right: “Do what you love. Love what you do.” Just to
build an entire case on half-the-thought: DWYL... I've read the comments and
that first part (DWYL) is practically the only thing people are discussing,
but I believe it loses the bigger picture. DWYL. LWYD. - Both things make it
balanced. It's not only about DWYL. When you have to do something else, you
need a conscious effort and purpose to LWYD.

I've read some years back (can't remember the name of the book) written by a
chinese talking about his father that was a locksmith and got a job as street
sweeper. He faced it with an intent. He'd be the best street sweeper in China.
He would love the streets assigned under his care. That is the LWYD. That
takes commitment and guts. But when you LWYD, you also DWYL.

------
calroc
This is bullshit. It got me so riled up I went and blogged about it:
[http://calroc.blogspot.com/2014/01/love-is-
power.html](http://calroc.blogspot.com/2014/01/love-is-power.html) (It is cool
to post links to own stuff in a comment like this? I'm new to HN.)

tl;dr: The idea that you can and should "do what you love and love what you
do" arose as a counter to the misguided idea that work is something you hate
that you do just to get the money to pay your bills and keep the lights on and
the pantry stocked. To confuse the basic concept with a sort of bromide for
the blind egos of a privileged elite is a terrible mistake.

------
j45
For me, doing what I love has meant learning a difference between "I love
solving only this problem in this way" vs. "I love solving problems."

Saying I only love to solve certain problems in certain ways: .. greatly
limits my ability to find something that I can be and stay passionate about,
become the best at, and have enough of a financial engine to generate income.

Saying I love to solve problems, and learning how to solve problems.. is much
closer to a sustainable first principle of "do what you love" for me. I can
solve problems in many more situations. Whether it's helping someone solve a
problem they've been doing manually, or a creative architecture.

------
vitd
Why does "do what you love" have to refer to work? I love playing music. I'm
not particularly skilled at it yet, as I'm still learning how, but it's great.
I don't make any money doing it, I just do it in my spare time. But when I'm
doing it, I'm doing what I love. And I'm not devaluing the work of others who
do it better than me or for money. I love listening to the music of others
(both for pay and for free, both of which I do frequently). This article makes
zero sense to me, and seems like a lot of projection of the author's idea
about the subject onto people who mean something different by the phrase.

------
ZenoArrow
The central premise of this article appears to be that aiming to do what you
love diminishes the efforts of those who feel they cannot.

Another way to look at it is that it's not the striving to do what you love
that is the problem, but rather the mundanity of the work being done that is
the problem. No matter where you are in the workforce, when your talents go to
waste that is an issue. I've little doubt we can arrange our society so that
more of us can fulfil our potential, so for me the mundane work is only a
factor in our current setup, not a non-negotiable burden.

~~~
VLM
"diminishes the efforts of those who feel they cannot."

More like diminishes their humanity. Humans love their jobs, so those who
don't love their jobs are obviously nonhuman. So no need to pay a living wage
to either people who will do it for love instead of money, or pay a living
wage to "others" not as morally and ethically superior as the few elite humans
who are above monetary concerns.

There's no need for moral and ethical concern over a tired cliche anyway. Its
had its run. Time to flush it, and pick a new interview question to see how
the applicant handles nonsense and stress.

I will say its hilarious how "you should love your job" invariably means
nothing other than more work for less pay. Love never in practice means "get a
hug from the receptionist day" or "Mgmt loves you right back by buying lunch
today" or "improve your working environment (bigger, more private, nicer,
quieter, etc) because you love it here so much". It does show up quite a bit
in Dilbertian satire, when insurance costs go up you get sarcastic comments
about working for love and so forth.

~~~
ZenoArrow
Rate of pay for vocational work is a separate subject. The issue here is the
divide between those that can follow a vocation, and those that (for whatever
reason) are not in a position to.

The reason that it's a separate issue to rate of pay is that it goes beyond
money. Even if monetary incentives to work did not exist, we would still wish
to spend our time in activities that were fulfilling. Removing money from the
equation would free up a larger slice of the population to find that which
they love to do. Expanding that slice should be the goal, not having a go at
those who are already placed to do what interests them.

------
callmeed
I'm sure DWYL adherents are so thankful there are people who _love_ spending
the day hunched over in the sun picking the strawberries and kale they're
gonna use in their salad tonight.

------
chippy
One part seemed a bit of a stretch. Steve Jobs "did what he wanted" so because
he did that he was exploitative capitalist boss.

Yes he did what he loved.

Yes his company is exploitative and he was a global capitalist.

No there's no connection between thinking you are doing something you love and
being a global capitalist exploiting boss.

The beginning of the article seemed to suggest to me that Doing What You Love
blinds you to other people's work and life choices.

------
azakai
> There’s little doubt that “do what you love” (DWYL) is now the unofficial
> work mantra for our time.

Really? I would like to see some sort of basis for that, since it doesn't seem
that way at all to me. Otherwise this seems like a strawman.

(A few thousand retweets etc. is not sufficient to convince me it is "the
unofficial work mantra for our time".)

------
maceo
I believe this article was first published in this month's installment of the
wonderful Jacobin Magazine ([https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/01/in-the-name-
of-love/](https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/01/in-the-name-of-love/)).

------
peter_l_downs

        There’s little doubt that “do what you love” (DWYL) is now
        the unofficial work mantra for our time. 
    

Tell you what, I'm doubtful. Let me just check the article for any type of
proof and... nope, still doubtful.

------
Fomite
I do what I love, and it pays the bills. In that regard, I am tremendously
lucky.

But rent is due regardless. It's great to have passions, and things you like
to do - those used to be called "hobbies".

------
dgreensp
The author is the snob, by calling intellectual, creative, ivory-tower sort of
work "lovable" and all the rest "unlovable." News flash: Some people prefer
taking care of babies to running a giant corporation. In fact, if you happen
to love babies and have a real knack for it, hanging out with a baby all day
and taking home a paycheck is a pretty good gig if you can get it. Similarly,
many Uber drivers I talk to are thrilled with their business, which lets them
support their family while being their own boss and setting their own hours,
and all they have to do is drive a car around town.

I'm not saying diapers are fun (I have a newborn); obviously not every moment
of every job is "lovable," and a little grit and mettle is required. I'm also
not saying people who "love" their work would do it for free. Some would, but
that's way too high a standard for the present conversation. We're talking
about individual career choice, not abolishing money in the world.

Yes, "do what you love" is an ideal, an aspiration, but it's a lot less
dehumanizing, more practical, and more empowering than whatever it replaces.
(Get a college degree, get a job, follow the rules, and you'll retire rich?)
If employers have to at least try to make an argument that they provide an
environment conducive to personal growth and that you'll have a positive
impact on the world by working there, that's great.

How insulting and invalidating is it for the author to assume "workers" must
be miserable, even if the workers themselves don't know it? It's the elitist
version of "those poor, miserable atheists." Or: "Those poor, miserable
programmers who have jobs rather than starting a start-up. They've actually
been brainwashed to think they're happy. They say they _like_ programming!"
Or: "Those poor stay-at-home moms, squandering their potential at the whim of
the patriarchy. They will never know the true fulfillment that comes from a
high-powered career."

Be careful what assumptions you bring to the table. You might be the asshole.

~~~
taeric
You completely miss what I see as the aim of the article. There are people
that want to take care of their kids, as that is what they "love." There are
virtually no people that get paid to take care of their kids.

That is, society, especially one that promotes "do what you love" does not
value raising your kids. And since we are discussing this in the terms of "do
what you love [and you will find success]", the whole bloody point is this odd
assertion that people that have not been successful are not "doing what they
love" and a deconstruction of it.

To its conclusion, you seem to merely be violently agreeing with the article.

~~~
dgreensp
I meant taking care of _other people 's_ kids. No one pays you to sit in
traffic for yourself, either, or write software for yourself, for that matter.
If we lived in some fantasy society with no money, maybe people would take
care of their own kids and not other people's, but that's not the question at
hand. Also, it's probably false. Watching each other's kids makes a lot of
sense with or without money.

~~~
taeric
The question at hand is whether "doing what you love" will "leave you
satisfied." And, further, that this is "as true for your work life as it is
your lovers."

Consider that society, by and large, does not put a ton of value in "sitting
around taking care of other peoples kids." Nor does it put a lot of value in
teaching said kids. Sure you can make enough to survive, but it is a
frustrating position that is often rather thankless and not at all
acknowledged.

Yet, those people should bugger off because if "they truly loved what they
were doing they would be satisfied." Right?

------
Tycho
Atlas wept.

------
philthesong
you can't spoil my child

------
squirejons
the article is correct. 'do what you love' is of course neoliberal propaganda
created and propagated by capital as part of its war against labor.

but we must go further and realize that capital is our enemy.

~~~
davidw
> but we must go further and realize that capital is our enemy.

Y Combinator is the enemy?

