If you can't make money from it, then it's not an absurd conclusion at all.

Of course, it means one needs a day job, but such is life.

Specifically, the day job shouldn't be too enjoyable if you're making money from it. Once it is, you should start doing it for free and find a job you find less enjoyable.

That just follows in a straightforward way. Now, this may not seem absurd to you, but I dare say it will to most people.

I think the original meaning was "if you love what you're doing, you would not mind doing it even if you're not being paid for it", not "if you love what you're doing, you would refuse to do it for pay, but only do it for free".

Signed, Captain Obvious

I think that is reading into the quote too much, but I can see where you are coming from. I agree with you that such reasoning is a bit absurd.

That only follows from what he said if you completely ignore the context. I honestly can't tell if you actually don't understand that, or if you are being deliberately clueless.

I think if you add in the context it becomes false.

How so?

>Specifically, the day job shouldn't be too enjoyable if you're making money from it. Once it is, you should start doing it for free and find a job you find less enjoyable.

More specifically, market forces dictate that if a job is all sparkles and lollipops, you don't need to pay people to do it, because they'll do it for free in their spare time. Thus, every job has downsides.

Sivers had a piece recently about balance in art and work. He suggested having a job that's purely about the money, and art on the side that is untroubled by concerns about commercial viability.

https://sivers.org/balance

At some point I realized that my work situation consisted of a combination of "must do", "should do" and "want to do" -- only I never managed to get past the "must do" or occasional "should do" in my day job. So I frequently ended up with doing the things I wanted at non-payable time. It is better to invest that time in something you can carry away with you when you leave, which makes a good argument for having personal side projects -- granted you are not infringing on something.

I chose to switch employer and in the process got better control of the work items on my list -- to the cost of a heightened responsibility but also a better wage.

Yeah, I think it's the incorrect conclusion too. If you really loved what you're doing, you'd try to find a way to monetize it so you could reclaim 1/3 of your earth-time from the drudgery of wage slavery and have much more freedom and opportunity to engage in the things you love.

Of course that's difficult and not always possible, but it doesn't mean one wouldn't, shouldn't, or couldn't try.

Of course it doesn't make sense when you remove the context. Here's the original, with the context properly included:

> not everything is worth money, and if you really love what you're doing, you'd give it away free