[delayed]

> Whether it's paid or not is irrelevant

When someone contemplates the wisdom of an entrepreneur who says he’s going to work until he dies, they’re not worried he might volunteer too much.

That's short-sighted. Most entrepreneurs, once they're financially stable, work for reasons other than money.

> No, work is effort expended to achieve a result

By this definition, going to the toilet is "work". If that's the case, I never want to get to a point where I stop working.

Well, it is, and the workload of ablution becomes greater as you age.

I like to use a fuzzy definition (though, all definitions are fuzzy—what's a chair? Good luck...) based on whether it's common for someone with the means to do so, to pay others to do it for them, by choice and not due to disability or something like that.

Taking a shit? Not work. Cleaning the toilet? Work.

Eating dinner? Not work. Cooking dinner? Work.

Playing badminton on your lawn? Not work. Mowing the lawn? Work.

Napping on your Ikea couch? Not work. Assembling that couch? Work.

How do you define "retirement"?

When you have enough money that you no longer do work for more?

What do you call it when you have enough money but you choose to continue anyway?

In the context of this discussion, the result has to be of value to someone else, that's all. Then you can haggle over how valuable it is. When it is for yourself, the currency is time and energy; you ponder how much to invest on one task versus another.

This is a useless definition, especially in this context. Washing my dishes is not work, because it's ultimately irrelevant whether I do it or not, although I'm doing it still because I have a result in mind.

It also comes across as very out of touch and privileged, because unless you have a relatively cushy job, you would definitely not see the difference between being paid or not as irrelevant. There are plenty of people who have to work very hard just to make ends meet, be it physically exhausting work, or repetitive and monotonous work. And they will not have the capacity to work even harder once they clock out of work, no matter the incentives, because they'll be spent and unable to.

> This is a useless definition, especially in this context.

No, it's a very apt and useful definition. It's just not one you appreciate.

> It also comes across as very out of touch and privileged, because unless you have a relatively cushy job, you would definitely not see the difference between being paid or not as irrelevant.

This comment is a straw man, because I didn't say pay was irrelevant. I said work is work whether you're paid or not.

It also ironically shows that you are out of touch and privileged, as your comment completely ignores two of the heaviest workloads in the world, housework and child-rearing. Neither are generally paid and both are most definitely work.

Only a completely out-of-touch and privileged person could think otherwise.

You might enjoy a fella named marx. Labor is labor, my friend. It should be mostly devoted to things that enrich the lives of us and those around us. It is normal to want to work. It is the alienating nature of selling our labor for a pittance that ruins our lives.

Then sell your labour for more than a pittance, if you're just haggling over the price.

Ahh, silly me, I should have just starved on the streets until someone recognized my value.

Unless you're in a country that embraced the teachings of Marx, you're more likely to die from too much food than not enough, or a class-based murder spree.

In Americas, the country with more famines is Haiti. In the world is Somalia. Both were victims of capitalist countries, they were never socialists.

"I work at a nonprofit"

"I worked on my yard today"

Your definition is arbitrary and goes against the established use of the word. Work can be many things. When people say they don't want to stop working, they are just saying they want to keep changing the world in big or small ways until they die.