>>Blaming workers for their poor conditions is elitist and fragile advice

I literally don't see where I said such a thing.

You literally told the worker that his misery is his own fault for having chosen the wrong job.

There’s a difference between blame and prudence. It’s not blaming him to suggest he is empowered to change his conditions. If someone eschews prudence once aware of it, then they do bear some accountability for their outcomes, but even accountability is not blame. The confusion of the two has become commonplace as our society tries to avoid any conception of accountability.

I said if there is no satisfaction then you need to find a different job. The misery part was added by you.

> I said if there is no satisfaction then you need to find a different job.

In this is the implicit assumption that there are enough jobs to give everyone satisfaction - that is what people are taking issue with. Do you believe that assumption is true?

I think people are coming up with this assumption just to have an argument for no reason - I'm replying to an individual comment on HN, not giving advice to every single worker out there

Assuming good faith, we can easily determine that OP was suggesting the working a job that provides no satisfaction would be misery. Considering satisfaction and misery are subjective, quibbling over the word choice is pedantic at best.

If you're incapable of seeing how someone might describe working in a job that provides no satisfaction as misery, I suggest taking time to understand how that can be the case, as your ignorance in this area does you harm.

All of that is reaching some conclusions and arguments that I didn't make and didn't use. All I said is that if your job doesn't bring you satisfaction then find another one. Everything beyond that is your own interpretation - I can of course see how you reached that interpretation, but I don't agree with it. There can be a job without satisfaction that isn't "misery". But that's not really relevant to my original point.