To the people downvoting this: why is this an unreasonable perspective?

The commenter isn't advocating one way or another, only pointing out that there are people that exist who are content with work as their self-perceived life meaning.

I can absolutely see how this can be true for people in the sciences. There are many academics who devote their entire career - and often their life - to finding the answer to extremely difficult problems. For those people, I imagine they must feel their work as more of a life mission rather than a regular job necessary to pay the bills.

There are a lot of people who find significant meaning in their work (perhaps greater meaning in their work than they've been able to find outside of it). That doesn't necessarily mean it's bad or unhealthy.

These type of people may be few and far between. But they exist.

didn't downvote but I do feel an instinctive distaste at seeing the sentiment expressed, not because it's a bad sentiment (it's actually a great one) but because of the role it plays in our public discourse.

As you pointed out, the people who share this sentiment are a minority - I'm less convinced it's tiny, what I've read suggests it's a sixth to a third, depending on how satisfied we mean. But that group is heavily weighted towards high-status professions.

As a result, a high-status minority is actively opposed to any social reforms that would increase leisure time, and I do believe we all suffer as a result. I don't think we can really put a price on Albert Einstein staying in that patent office, but I think it's very high and I think we all pay it. That's what I associate with comments like the grandparent - such a person is in a good situation, and good on them for recognizing it. But they often generalize their experience to a majority of the population where that is actually very much the wrong conclusion to draw.

I don't even think you need to be in the sciences. Perhaps it's a result of a protestant upbringing, but I grew up in blue-collar America where virtually everyone was a tradesman. If I may generalize: these are people that while they might complain and dislike going to work, they feel deep satisfaction about contributing back to society.

Or maybe it's that with trades you have a direct connection to the work you do and the effect it has on the world.

Either way I think we could learn something from them. White collar types seem to want to avoid work at all costs. Work isn't to be avoided. In fact if you measure your life by how much it affects others, it's probably the most important part of your life.

As a developer, I feel a deep disconnect between the work I do and any results. At home I make things and I get way more satisfaction from designing a simple 3D object that serves a function and printing it out.

I can see why tradesmen may have better job satisfaction. You can directly improve the life of someone else.

I find immense meaning in my work, and I've gone through long stretches in the past 10 years where I would've said more or less what the parent commenter said, that experience for its own sake is meaningless.

However, my perspective has evolved somewhat, or changed might be the better word.

Just because something is productive and rewarded by society doesn't mean it can't be addictive. And just because something is rewarding and meaningful doesn't mean you're fully enjoying your life as the present. It can be easy to get caught up in always working for the future as life passes you by.

A life algorithm that's always focused on improving future moments, but that never takes the time to enjoy them when future arrives and they become present moments… it's almost like some sort of tragic Greek myth.

I guess there is work under employment (or as a founder, or whatever), and then work outside of this.

Considering a large definition of work, when you are cooking, cleaning your house, taking care of your children or grandchildren, maintaining your free software or participating in your association in your "free time", you are still working, only perhaps with less strings attached for some of these things, and unpaid for that (note that you can see your retirement leave as an indirect payment).

And that is very comforting to me: you can still work as a retired, on things meaningful to you, without anyone telling you what to do.

And sure, you may have the chance to pick a (paid, employed, founder's) job that is meaningful to you. Best to ensure that you'll still be able to achieve meaningful things to you (on your own) after you leave that job if this is important to you.

I think ones health and perhaps even perception of its imminent decline makes people avoid commitments such as taking a role in their association that requires some activity. The same may mean people in their retirement do not engage in long term projects.

As for cooking, cleaning etc one can optimise those activities to do them almost mindlesly I imagine.

I understand without really sharing the parent’s sentiment. I’ll probably continue doing some of the work I do now when I retire. But at some point I do want to spend more time on hobbies and travel that’s more in the more time than money (eg backpacking) vein.

But I understand how someone might find fiddling around with photography or home software projects frivolous if they could instead contribute to projects they find significant-but are of a nature that they really need to work on more or less full time.

Work is the way you contribute back into society. Going to work and doing my job is my way of knowing that I'm giving back into the system that allows me and my family to live. I find it far more fulfilling than anything else.

Hobbies I hate. By definition I'm an amateur and I don't perform well. At my job, I get to exercise the skills I'm best at.

I can't do any old job though. I have to be able to trace at least a thin line from what I'm doing to the broader society.

I know this isn't a common opinion, but I encourage you to at least consider that work—while not fun—is at least a fulfilling way to spend your time. This should be the case regardless of what you do or how much you make.

> Hobbies I hate. By definition I'm an amateur and I don't perform well.

Depends. If no one else is doing that particular thing, then by definition you're the world expert. It doesn't matter if there are other people who could hypothetically do it better; they're not in the game.

I have a current hobby that most able-bodied technically minded people could do better than me (genetic joint condition), but as far as I can tell I'm accomplishing things no one else has.

> Hobbies I hate. By definition I'm an amateur and I don't perform well.

Doing it as a hobby just means that you don't do it for money, not that you aren't good at it. For example often your hobbies overlap with your work. I program games as a hobby and program/design extremely performance sensitive things at my job, they overlap quite a lot.

> Hobbies I hate. By definition I'm an amateur and I don't perform well.

If you love doing something (which is the origin of the word "amateur"), you're likely to be good at it. If you're a professional, it just means you get paid.

Amateurs care primarily about the pursuit itself, while professionals care primarily about their paychecks.

Well, unless you live alone or don't work at all, you will always be spending much more time working than on your hobbies, so you will inevitably be better at working.

I think that the gp is using "work" to mean one specific job or at least only the work one does in their career, while you're using it to mean all work.

I don't think they're mutually exclusive views. I think it's possible to do meaningful and impactful work outside of your job and career, like volunteering or running a side business as a passion project or even creating artwork, and I can imagine that kind of work being the kind of thing you never retire from.

Except that if you retire early you can still "work". It's just that you can work on whatever you want, not just on what someone will pay you for.

But is it work if no one is willing to pay for it? I would consider that to be hobby.

For me, the separation between hobby and work is more of a matter of responsibility than pay. If I feel responsible for some activity/task/project I would classify it as work. It does not matter if it is taking care of kids, growing a garden, being a board member of some charitable organization, or one of my free software projects: I do not get paid, and I like doing it, but I think of it as work rather than a hobby.

Building some software prototypes for ideas I have, that I count as a hobby. Reading all the books I do, however more time I spend on it than some work activities, I still think of as a hobby.

totally agree with you. if i love my job then no reason to retire.

Good luck keeping a job in technology into old age.