Comment by CharlieDigital 17 hours ago
"Work" here I would define as exchanging time for money.
Volunteering is not work.
For me personally, I make a distinction between "working" and "creating". I will always want to create (a very broad term), but I will not always want to work. In fact, I don't want to work now; I only want to create. The best is when I can exchange my creation for money -- then it is no longer work.
Then sell your labour for more than a pittance, if you're just haggling over the price.
Ahh, silly me, I should have just starved on the streets until someone recognized my value.
Unless you're in a country that embraced the teachings of Marx, you're more likely to die from too much food than not enough, or a class-based murder spree.
No, work is effort expended to achieve a result. Whether it's paid or not is irrelevant, and many people work harder for free than they ever do in employment, because the incentives are right.
> No, work is effort expended to achieve a result
By this definition, going to the toilet is "work". If that's the case, I never want to get to a point where I stop working.
I like to use a fuzzy definition (though, all definitions are fuzzy—what's a chair? Good luck...) based on whether it's common for someone with the means to do so, to pay others to do it for them, by choice and not due to disability or something like that.
Taking a shit? Not work. Cleaning the toilet? Work.
Eating dinner? Not work. Cooking dinner? Work.
Playing badminton on your lawn? Not work. Mowing the lawn? Work.
Napping on your Ikea couch? Not work. Assembling that couch? Work.
This is a useless definition, especially in this context. Washing my dishes is not work, because it's ultimately irrelevant whether I do it or not, although I'm doing it still because I have a result in mind.
It also comes across as very out of touch and privileged, because unless you have a relatively cushy job, you would definitely not see the difference between being paid or not as irrelevant. There are plenty of people who have to work very hard just to make ends meet, be it physically exhausting work, or repetitive and monotonous work. And they will not have the capacity to work even harder once they clock out of work, no matter the incentives, because they'll be spent and unable to.
> This is a useless definition, especially in this context.
No, it's a very apt and useful definition. It's just not one you appreciate.
> It also comes across as very out of touch and privileged, because unless you have a relatively cushy job, you would definitely not see the difference between being paid or not as irrelevant.
This comment is a straw man, because I didn't say pay was irrelevant. I said work is work whether you're paid or not.
It also ironically shows that you are out of touch and privileged, as your comment completely ignores two of the heaviest workloads in the world, housework and child-rearing. Neither are generally paid and both are most definitely work.
Only a completely out-of-touch and privileged person could think otherwise.
"I work at a nonprofit"
"I worked on my yard today"
Your definition is arbitrary and goes against the established use of the word. Work can be many things. When people say they don't want to stop working, they are just saying they want to keep changing the world in big or small ways until they die.
You might enjoy a fella named marx. Labor is labor, my friend. It should be mostly devoted to things that enrich the lives of us and those around us. It is normal to want to work. It is the alienating nature of selling our labor for a pittance that ruins our lives.