You are assuming that we have few people who would actually enjoy being a janitor or plumber and I can assure you that's wrong. People don't go into those professions because of economic and societal pressures (something you are perpetuating by implying that tue aforementioned are not prestigious or 'good' professions). More over, my point is not that everyone should or would even want to become an artist. It is the fact that many people are not given a balanced choice.

You have a very weird definition of balanced choice. If I were given a choice between working or not and would receive full pay and benefits either way, I'd stop working. As much as I would like to be able to make such a choice, it's not a balanced one. The different pay and benefits are how we balance the choices to reflect not just your individual preferences but the needs of society.

I strongly disagree with the idea that pay reflects the needs of our society in any way.

"Needs" as in "need for entertainment", not "needs" as in "need for shelter". More of a "we want this and thus we're willing to pay for it".

Do you really feel that society is equally well off whether I get a job or stay home doing nothing all day?

You are misunderstanding my position by assuming that "not working" is anywhere on the table. I believe that if people want to eat and are fully able then they should work. My lament is that the opportunity to choose one's path is not a balanced one. i.e.: I have to optimize for pay, for QOL, or hope for a balance between the two. The latter of course exists, but it's much rarer than "just" a 150k+ SoftEng job in CA.

You're not understanding my position. A choice in which you're paid equally to do whatever you most want to do or whatever society most needs you to do is not a balanced choice. There needs to be some weight toward the needs of society for a true balance. I was just using not working as an extreme example of this problem.

I'm sure you'd be much happier sculpting, but the consequences would be similar to you getting paid for doing nothing.

>the consequences would be similar to you getting paid for doing nothing

You're right in that I'm having trouble seeing your point because what you write doesn't follow at all. If I'm a sculptor I'm producing something. Arguably something that people want and are willing to pay at least some money for. I would even disagree that society needs me to do anything. Certainly it doesn't need me to be a software engineer - a large corporation needs me to do that so they can sell more features.

If I want to maintain a certain standard of living then in many cases I have a limited set of paths on how to achieve that. The balance comes in having more ways of reaching the same goal.

The large corporation needs you to be a software engineer so it can sell things that people want and are willing to pay money for. If you can sell your sculptures for as much as your software engineering job pays, you should do that. Otherwise, you're asking for society to subsidize your hobby in the same way that society would be subsidizing my hobbies if I were paid to stay home all day. I'd probably even sculpt sometimes if that were the case.

> I would even disagree that society needs me to do anything.

Then why shouldn't you receive a salary without doing anything?

I don’t know about you specifically, but I’ve met enough people who would contribute more to society if they just stayed home. I think there is very little correlation between salary and use to society.

Do you agree that on average, society needs people to work? Do you agree that on average, society needs new software engineers more than it needs new sculptors?

A while back I used to say that I'd rather be a janitor (for offices, anyway) than do tech support for non-technical end users.

When I unexpectedly found myself presented with those two options, wouldn't you know it, I chose exactly how I said I would. I was happy with my choice, and if I found myself in the same situation I would make it again.

I'd love to be a janitor. You can clock out after 8 hours of work, and if you don't someone is paying you time and a half. Being a software engineer is a shit job because people expect you to "give it your all" which usually means spending all your time in the office.

I'm leaving my current company because they expected me to cancel planned trips, vacations, and time with friends simply because they can't plan anything. And management was openly resentful when I wouldn't. My twenties and thirties are the best years of my life and if you won't let me have them I'll find someone who will.

From an n=2 sample size, both our office cleaners come in after their day jobs because they want to earn a bit of cash on the side. Absent a reward of some kind, it's hard to imagine why anyone would bother cleaning someone else's floor.

Absent a reward of some kind, it's hard to imagine why anyone would bother working in a lot of jobs

Sounds wonderful.

Only sounds wonderful until your toilet clogs up.

And gets worse when you try to use an app to report the clog, only to find that the internet pipes are also clogged.