Not working a job simply reveals your inner character. When you work a job, you're an instrument of the will of your bosses. When you don't work a job, you're free to have a will of your own. So what you choose to do reflects completely on you. Sadly due to oppressive hierarchies many people have needed to exist in environments where willfulness is punished. Since all their past experiences acting of their own volition resulted in punishment, many people become afraid to do things, once there's no longer anyone responsible for telling them what to do. That makes it difficult for the person's inner creativity and independent motivation to emerge. There's nothing delusional about that. It's just a sign of how unfairly people in our society have been victimized. If you want to help such people, then rather than telling them to get a job, you may want to consider helping them to conquer their fears.

There are many people who have conquered their fears, and are simply bad at whatever they are trying to do. Either that or they aren't really trying to do anything except enjoy themselves, and they don't care / are oblivious to the fact that their lifestyle is a net drain on society that will eventually land them in a very bad spot.

> Is this magazine going to somehow change the world?

Maybe?

Its impossible to know what will change the world. If i had to guess, probably not significantly, but every action does a little bit.

Nonetheless, there's something admirable about making the earnest effort, even if it fails. We only have one life to live after all.

How do you think about the risk of turning into one of those non-work people but also valuing long periods of not working?

When you initially quit, were you thinking you'd find a new position that you were passionate about and then it didn't materialize, forcing you to go back to your previous life?

When I initially quit, I thought I was going to do something similar to what the author here was trying to do, after taking a couple of years off. I had some fantasy of being an artist. I don't believe the notion that there is a position in tech that I would be passionate enough about that I would really care all that much, but I work remotely for about 5-6 hours a day now and have plenty of time to do the things that I care about.

My perspective now is that there are two ends of the work/life balance spectrum you should avoid. The first is not working at all, or working as little as possible. This would include doing something far below what you are capable of like working at a grocery store just because there is no stress and you can manage to get by on that type of income. Lots of people fall into a lifestyle where they realize they don't want to be materialistic, so they never get a career going, and then they pay serious consequences as they get older and have no money or freedom.

The other end of the spectrum to avoid is materialism. Measuring your self worth in status, or seeking status, especially through money, is a challenging thing to avoid at least in the US. Being close minded and materialistic, in my opinion, is robbing yourself of experiencing life in the way it can be experienced, because it makes it hard to build good relationships or empathize with people. Materialism is a huge huge issue in our society and it is something that too many people who start making lots of money take for granted, and this is ultimately rooted in fear and insecurity.

I think I was pushed down the path of materialism by default. I was an insecure twentysomething who was working hard at something that didn't make me happy, and everyone was telling me how well I was doing and to keep at it. The more I made it a part of me the more unhappy I became until I eventually quit.

When I quit and started hanging out with people who had also quit (or never started) I felt like a weight had been lifted off of me and that I was now living the dream. Eventually I realized how lucky I had been to have the career I had, and backed off of the path I was on by starting to work again, but with a much better sense of balance and perspective.

So you’re saying that everybody that makes money contributes to society?

Definitely not saying that. I would also argue that I am contributing less than a majority of my non tech friends, who all make less than me aside from a couple of doctors.

How would that not be true?

Lobbyist lobbying to make submitting taxes difficult is a net positive?

You have changed your argument.

First you challenged the idea that everyone who earns money contributes to society.

Then you changed your argument to challenge the idea that everyone who earns money is a net positive to society.

Those two things are not the same, and moving the goalposts in this way is intellectually dishonest.

A lobbyist contributes to society insofar as that they spend their money in their local community on food and shelter, and in most cases also pay taxes. Whether or not every earner is a net positive to society was not my argument.

It's really really uncommon to use "contribute to society" in any sense other than "contribute positively/constructively to society". It's clearly a misunderstanding here.

That may be so, but even people who are a net negative to society (which is fairly subjective anyway) make positive contributions.

The world isn't quite so black and white, you know?

How is contributing and net positive not equivalent?

Because a net result is the total after summing positive and negative contributions.