I had the same thought. It seemed to me like the author was trying to make his position far more noble than what it really is. The whole thing boils down to "Look at me, I just turned down $50K so that I could still say 'fuck'".
'I just turned down $4k because I dont need it and like to say 4 letter words'
Mz bookmarks article to try to figure out if she can sell her soul for $4k/month at some future date.
That's certainly a valid choice; some people prioritize "integrity of that sort" over money.
* Really, all three of us have gotten well at my expense.
>If this blog were the only thing between my family and a homeless shelter, I’d surely be a banner-changin’, credit-card-hustlin’ fool. Just as the indebted office worker faced with an abusive manager will bow down and do the shitty work, year-in and year-out.
The whole point of his blog is financial freedom. How to make enough money that you don't have to live like that.
The overall concept and goal of the site is great, financial freedom is an excellent thing. The tone I perceived from this singular post just wasn't as noble as others have received it as. More power to the guy for being able set standards for his content and not let financial incentives affect them.
Eg, his monthly income is reduced from $6000 to $2000, but he only spends $2000, it may be a reduction of 66% but he can still live with the decision.
Compare that with someone that makes $20k a month and spends $20k a month - $4k a month is a small amount of money, but he can't give it up.
Also, is this really an issue of freedom of speech? Seems a little melodramatic to me.