I previously wrote about how I think the idea that you must choose a job you love is overrated and how financial stability should almost always play a factor in the job you choose because it's so inherently tied to overall quality of life.
I'm doubling down on this answer, but for a different reason.
A lot of people support the claim that you must find a job you're passionate about with some sort of speech resembling this: "Just do the math. You work 40 hours a week. There are 52 weeks in a year, and you work for 40 years of your life. That's over 83,000 hours of work! Do you really want to be doing something you hate for 83,000 hours?!"
But I find this narrative, for the most part, rubbish. Yes, 83,000 hours of work over 40 years is a heck of a long time. But during that same time span, you would also have over 266,000 hours where you're not working. You would have over 266,000 hours of free time. And don't you want to be able to enjoy that free time? Why should you necessarily optimize for your job and choose a career that makes your 83,000 hours more bearable when you can optimize for your personal life and choose a career that makes your 266,000 more enjoyable? Why is there such a pressure to design your entire life around that 83,000 hours when it's really the minority of your time?
Don't get me wrong; I don't think I would ever work long-term in a role that I wasn't inspired or personally motivated by. It's just sort of my orientation as a human being. I like the idea of finding a company that is doing really cool things and putting in a good 40 hours of work into promoting that cause every week.
But I don't think it's fair for anyone to judge someone who choose their job just because the paychecks are fat or because it's easy and stable. Perhaps they're just optimizing for their personal life. And I support them.
Comments