
The Lie of The Four Hour Work Week. - MaysonL
http://www.illuminatedmind.net/2009/03/17/the-lie-of-the-four-hour-work-week/
======
brc
I only got about a paragraph in and realised it was someone with a chip on his
shoulder.

Nobody intelligent finishes the 4HWW book and believes it to be a manual on
how to whittle your hours down to 4 a week.

The book (to my interpretation, at least) is about prioritizing activities in
your life, and spending as little time as possible on the things that bring
the most reward (both monetary and not). It's mostly just a wake up call to
not spend your life in a cubicle farm if you aren't happy there.

The original working title for the book as 'drug dealing for fun and profit'
which was nixed by the publisher. He ad-tested a selection of titles in Google
Adwords and selected the best performing title. That's where the 4 hour work
week comes in : the most effective hook to bring in buyers. Apparently it's
the most effective to raise the ire of hard-working bloggers.

~~~
hbien
If you read past first paragraph, the whole article is almost exactly the same
as your comment:

* Title is controversial, but the actual content of the book offers sound advice

* Don't waste time doing something you hate

* Spend more time doing something you love (like making a difference)

* He even admitted that negativity publicity for the book (like him writing this article) is still good publicity

------
wallflower
The author's premise is that most people equate work with something
unpleasant. Therefore, the 4HWW is a "lie" because most people need to enjoy
their work more instead of adult fantasizing about living the retired
lifestyle (I didn't get the logical leap).

As a programmer, I think there is some enjoyment from being able to create and
weave stuff that people use out of code. Yes, there are parts to the job that
I dislike: the downtime, some group apathy, office politics, etc. However, I
feel that I am fortunate to be in a profession where I can exercise problem-
solving and creativity and have relatively durable metrics for performance vs.
Some of the more abstract office jobs my friends have.

As a very smart kid I know said in his valedictory address:

"Work doesn't necessarily make you happy, but it may give you the _means_ to
do the things that make you happy*"

Remember life balance is not static, it's a dynamic process. Happiness is
fleeting because our survival depends on it.

------
bk
This is rambling link bait for the blog's author to build a reputation and
audience. Fair enough, but not enlightening.

------
koningrobot
Actually, most people don't hate work at all. I hear they love it and they
couldn't even imagine life without work and the satisfaction (also spelled
"exhaustion") it gives. At least that's what everyone says when I make it
known that I hate work. Still, even though everyone loves to work, I can't get
_anyone_ to pay for my survival. (In fact, there are those who condemn welfare
leeches because that makes them have to work more!)

But seriously, are these romantic articles doing us any good? I expected
something a bit more cynical with a title like this. Instead, all I got was
more you-can-do-it peptalk, telling me that there's a wonderful job somewhere
over the rainbow where I won't even notice the restrictions, responsibilities
and captivity inherent to jobs.

Admittedly, I'm making the same mistake as the author of the article by
conflating doing work with having a job. Doing work can be great; I absolutely
love programming. However, there are no jobs where you can do whatever you
want all the time. It's no use to pretend otherwise.

Perhaps if we admit that jobs suck, we can find alternatives. (And I don't
think founding startups is it.)

~~~
bitwize
Somebody's got to dig ditches and handle sewage. Until we invent robots to do
the manual labor and put nanomachines in the toilet to treat the sewage in-
situ, there's no real replacement for the job in our society.

~~~
koningrobot
Yeah, somebody has to do that. But it doesn't have to be _one_ person. I
wouldn't mind digging a ditch or handling some sewage every once in a while.
If everyone did a little of everything without commitment or paperwork or
whatnot, I bet we'd be much better off. Utopian, sure, but I'm certain it
could be made to work. (Even the worst slackers would start doing things when
there's no blame, expectations or obligations.)

Also, I'm afraid that when the robots finally do everything, we the people
will still be left with paper-shuffling jobs. As robots gain ground, jobs will
be lost and new pointless jobs invented for the sacked. That's been happening
for decades now. It's like boiling a frog: we won't even notice when we get to
the point where robots are doing everything and the only reason we're still
working is because we're keeping each other's artificial jobs going.

Kind of hard to explain this point. Think insurers insuring managers who
manage insurers, only more widespread and complex. Think circular references
in a reference-counting garbage-collected environment: objects that are
completely unnecessary but things have gotten so complex that it's hard to see
it.

Then of course there's the question of who owns the means of production: if
corporations had to pay for the robots, they won't just make them do
everyone's work for free. Quid pro quo, right? And this doesn't take malice:
the frog will be boiled very gradually.

(I know you can't boil frogs like that. That's not the point.)

------
steveplace
Hasn't this been hashed out for the past 18 months?

