On not getting a job as an option

As someone spending a pretty solid part of my earnings on maintaining my aging former hippie parents, I'd like to point out that it's a radically egoistic choice to make, even if it doesn't appear at the time.

They dropped off the grid and managed many years with very little money, just living and appreciating nature and stuff. Great, right? But you don't accumulate any pension benefits in those years, and even if you move back to a more conventional life later, your earning potential is severely impacted.

Not getting a job is a psychologically realistic and socially acceptable option for Americans who are female, are partnered with employed men, enjoy at least one facet of homemaking, and aren't optimizing for certain specific forms of feminist cred.

It depends on what you mean by "job". It seems like you're saying that not having a job is equivalent to not working. I'd argue otherwise. You still do a lot of work. It's just that the work that you're doing doesn't fit into the traditional capitalist view of working for an employer, so you don't see it as a "job".

You bring up a number of examples: the Argentinian who left graduate economics to travel the world. Puneet Sahani. The Uruguayan couple. They don't have jobs in the traditional American sense of working for an employer for money. But I'd argue that their lifestyle is no less arduous than someone who does have a job. They still have to make arrangements for food, clothing, shelter and travel, and presumably they're doing something of value to earn those resources. That's work, even if it isn't a job, as traditionally defined.

Moreover, such a lifestyle requires a certain type of personality. It requires a personality that is willing to accept extreme levels of uncertainty, in some cases to the point of not knowing where one is going to sleep the next night. For that reason, I'd argue that getting a job is the rational decision for most people. It makes sense to trade a certain amount of freedom for the certainty of knowing that when you go home, you'll have a home to go to, with food in the fridge and clothes in the closet. The fact that some people are able to be happy without having that certainty doesn't mean that everyone will be happy in such a lifestyle, or even that you will be happy in such a lifestyle.

A job is truly an instrumental goal, and your terminal goals certainly do have chains of causation leading to them that do not contain a job for 330 days a year.

This is true, but the uncertainty around those other chains of causation is considerably higher than the chains of causation that do involve having a job. Sure, I can scrape by without a job, hitchhiking my way along to where-ever I'm trying to go. Or I can travel with relative certainty in a train or a jetliner with tickets that I purchased with money from my job. Which route you choose depends on your tolerance for uncertainty and risk. I, for one, am glad for my job. It provides me the resources by which I carve out a tiny bubble of relative certainty in an uncertain world.

But a job is so easy! I'm fully aware that I don't need a job. I'm certainly capable of wandering into the woods and finding a cave and scrounging for roots and setting snares and surviving. but that's really inefficient. Apartments are cheap. Food is cheap. For someone with a high earning capacity, the benefits of modern society outweigh the costs by a factor of at least 10 to 1.

Having an income is awesome, and not hard to come by. I literally get paid to attend school. I'm given an office, a computer, access to a fast internet connection, and more than twice as much money as I need to support myself. I totally agree that employment is overrated in our society and that very few people make the history books just because they showed up for work everyday, but having a boring predictable income I don't have to think about is precisely what gives me the freedom and energy to actually think about and pursue more interesting problems.

It is as abnormal for an American, in my experience, to consider not working, as it is to consider not breathing, or not eating.

Note that you seem to have a huge and invisible to you gender assumption :-)

Have you also thought about the possible connection between your observation and the fact that the US is a very wealthy country?

let me remind people that you can spend years and years not working.

You certainly can. There are a whole bunch of people in the US who do precisely that. Unfortunately for your argument they don't look to be ultrahip vagabonds who travel the world in between TED talks. On the contrary, they look to be poor, severely constrained in what they can do, unhealthy, stuck in bad neighborhoods with high crime rates, etc. etc.

Life is a series of choices. You can make a choice to drop out and I know people who've done that, both recently and back in the 70s. But there is a price, of course, and for some people the price is worth paying and for some it is not.

There are intermediate stages, too. For example I've met a guy who works for one month per year on an offshore platform and that gives him enough money to travel low-budget in Asia for the rest of the year. He doesn't have a house or an apartment, he is either on the platform or traveling. He stores his stuff at his mom's.

If I may make a generalization, dropping out works much better for people who are young, single, healthy, adaptable, and can quickly find a reasonable job if they need to (aka have sufficiently high IQ and some marketable skills). That's not an iron-clad rule, of course. One somewhat popular way of dropping out is to buy a cruising yacht and go off into the oceans of the world -- and that is occasionally done by full families with kids.

One other point is the uncertainty of the future. Because of it you want to both retain some flexibility and have resources to deal with whatever it throws at you. A vagabond style of life tends to be very flexible but very low on resources.

I have been thinking about the following question a lot.

The western world is very productive, due to the industrial and information revolutions. But we still work a lot (a lot of it "abstract white collar work"). Now the question is, how much of this work is just "paying people to dig holes in the ground" as Keynes puts it, and how much of it is solving genuine coordination problems (which we know is hard, and hence requires manpower, and in addition it is hard to coordinate to solve coordination problems..)

Economists like Hanson would say that it would be silly for firms to pay people to dig holes in the ground, but firms are often systematically crazy in various ways.

Now that would be an interesting topic: The rationalist hobo.

I am actually considering something similar. There is the extremely early retirement community where the general suggestion is to earn much money in very short amount of time, to live below means in that time, to invest as much of it as possible and to then live from the interest gathered. Driven to extremes the necessary base capital can be quite low, such as in the low hundreds of thousands.

As interest is mobile and I can relocate to a country that almost does not tax capital interest I am free to roam the world. Additional income can come from local work or donations as I intend to still work some amount of time in theoretical research which essentially is just time consuming without need for capital expenditure.

For some time at least this would be very interesting.

Edit: The availability of so much free learning material online makes this even more viable. The only issue will be maintaining a good exercise regimen and good eating habits.

Edit 2: If you can learn remotely, you can work remotely. Being on the road does not preclude doing analysis or similar stuff to stil learn an income.

you're only encountering the people for whom vagabonding worked

the ones you don't see are dead or destitute

Personally, I've done a version of this. I've had jobs, but never a career, choosing to travel and have fun instead. I didn't need anyone to persuade me that this was an acceptable option, but I'm curious if anyone could persuade me that it's not. Redline mentioned giving the least possible effort and receiving maximum utility in return; this is the story of my life, only my "utility" has been fun.

First, I went to Guatemala and taught SAT prep 12 hours/week with 3 day weekends. This gave me the status of having a job, personal fulfillment of making a positive impact on students' lives, and paid far more than what I needed to cover living expenses. I spent my days reading suspense/fantasy novels, trail running, bike riding, volcano climbing, hanging out with friends, exploring, and seeking new experiences. Life was like a full time vacation!

Now, I'm here in California, "working" as a nanny (still have 3 day weekends), and my job consists of taking care of 2 fun, hilarious, well-behaved boys, playing marco polo, having nerf gun wars, buying and cooking whatever I want, reading bedtime stories, and it gives me the personal fulfillment of feeling super appreciated. In my free time, I play board games, go hiking, play ultimate frisbee, catch up with friends, and do loads of reading. Life is like a full time vacation!

I love my life, but every now and then, people will look down on me for "wasting my potential" and I'm tempted to agree with them. I'm not the best at anything (or I would probably feel more guilty about my decision), but I am very good at a lot of things (high school valedictorian, top 1% standardized test scores), and I'm genuinely curious:

Can a good argument be made in favor of ambition over hedonism, or does it all just boil down to intrinsic motivation and feelings of personal satisfaction?

Some of your examples seem to boil down to "it's possible to convince other people to support you, while providing nothing much in return". If rejecting such lifestyle options is a "Protestant ethic", then color me Protestant.

Other examples you provide are more like "if you aren't picky about the lifestyle you want, or where to live, then you can support yourself on less". Fair enough. Most people are more picky than that. For example, I like indoor plumbing, and can think of very little that I would be interesting in spending much time seeing in other countries. (Note: I have been to a total of 10 countries in my life.)

The reason Americans consider working a de facto biological need is that things people want and need cost money, and jobs are how you get money. There are exceptions to both of those rules, but to imply that the rules are thereby false in the general case is quite silly.

not getting a job isn't going to kill you or make you less healthy

This, especially the latter part, is ridiculous.

This is also a repost of my response to diegocaleiro in another thread.

I was raised to have a job and a career. It was not a matter of religion or capitalism, it was just "all people work" and "you'll go to the best high school, best university and then have a career". My parents worked. My grandparents worked. I was raised more by nurseries, kindergartens and schools than by my family, so "everybody earns money at a job" is the default for me.

Yet, partly by chance, partly by laziness, partly through feeling of insecurity I never got a job. I studied, got married, had a kid, studied some more, had another kid. More or less then I decided to create a real family, one I never had as a child. I decided to consciously raise the children, and realized that this requires more time and effort than I could afford if I had any kind of steady job. So, even though I was getting "unemployable" by approaching 30 and never working a single day in my life, I ditched the one offer I had.

It's relatively easy to be a homemaker with a husband who earns more money, but for me it's difficult psychologically. After all, my childhood and adolescence were about learning enough to get a great job and not about housekeeping (when I moved out at 20 I couldn't turn the washing machine on). I get that, in a way, I am doing the most stereotypical thing a woman can do, but for me it's the other way round.

So maybe this is one more reason why people think they have to have a job - they were raised to think so.

Every time the topic of blind people seeking employment comes up in relevant fora, the Brits express similar sentiments to diegocaleiro: "soul-sucking work for money/status you won't ever have time to spend? Why?"

In the US, SSI for a disabled individual living alone is a little over $700, but one is not allowed to possess more than $2000 in resources at any given time (residence and a single vehicle for transportation are not counted as resources). All of that is the best case, of course; fail to properly report anything, wind up with $2k in your bank account(s) at any point (this even happened once when my SSI had stopped for a couple months, then they tried to backpay it all at once when it restarted), or try to cheat the system (and fail), and the social security administration will require you pay for it (they can withhold up to 10% of SSI to pay on these bills).

For me, I went to an expensive college before shattering my naive idealistic overly optimistic worldview, and the only real way to defer my loan payments to the point where SSI is anything but a parachute into oblivion is to go back to school, or wind up with a job that pays at least $15k/year (one or two loans can be reduced based on income (or lack there of), but it takes either continuing education or a job to get out of the negative in my case).

I want to have a job because I want to know that I'll have access to (healthy) food and (pleasant) shelter, and I don't want to live with my parents for the rest of their life.

How can I be reasonably confident that I'll have those two things without having a job?

Edit: To the person who downvoted this comment, why? It was a completely serious comment, which responded to a question Diego asked in the post.

I've lived off my parents ever since I graduated from college back in 2006...

This has been one of my dreams for forever. I remember playing Okami and encountering a "wandering artist " character who travels the world and interprets what he sees in the form of art, and thinking to myself "wow, that is exactly what I want to do".

But it seems like more of a thing to do for a few years and then go back into the workforce than something to do for the rest of your life. For starters, it would probably get tiring. Secondly, it would be a lot easier and less terrifying if you saved up a bunch of money in preparation for this adventure, to use when absolutely necessary, rather than literally have no means of income and be surviving on a day-to-day basis.

I wonder what the impractical or risky aspects of this are. It seems like if you have living relatives available to bail you out if you get in too deep then there aren't too much, but there are probably some that I am forgetting. Healthcare? Do employers care if you have a five-year gap in your resume? What else? Is there a reason why I shouldn't do this a few years after I graduate college?

The most basic rudiments of childcare cost two orders of magnitude more than the amounts that you're talking about living on, and having a stable family life that the children will actually enjoy is going to cost another order of magnitude.

But, if you don't plan on having kids, knock yourself out.

I surprised (pleasantly) nobody has raised ethical concerns, debt to the world or what not. I worked a nothing bank job for five years despite being very financially secure (which I did nothing to earn) and am quitting in a month or so. (32yo) I was almost completely motivated to work out of guilt, and am just now over it. Thanks for the post; I wish I read it four years ago.

Reminds me of this (Is Kiryas Joel an Unhappy Place? ).

Do you consider food, shelter, and clothing to be optional? You know those things cost money, right?

Utility : Expression of subjective preference between two or more ways to acquire well-being.

Money : Measure of utility. Exchange means with the highest probability of acceptance.

Wage labor : contractual exchange of a portion of one's freedom to use a part of his life time against money. Each party seeks to secure its supply over time of convenience being exchanged . (subordination vs money) .

We learned early on that we could do more and better bearing our needs and desires by using mutual and exchange . By specializing in specific tasks and allocating tasks across multiple individuals, we make better performance. The value created is then redistributed between individuals via exchange.

Tasks and utility distribution result from negotiations between individuals in which each asserts his skills but also his power.

Generally rational individuals seeking to maximize their individual well-being would :

• give the least possible effort

• give the least possible of the non renewable, non extensible (yet) life time ressource

• receive the maximum utiliy in return.

Economic actors develop strategies more or less sophisticated to achieve their goals.

The more an individual has power the more he will attempt to set rules for sharing tasks with minimal negotiation, while maintaining others in terms of motivation that maximizes his utility . He will also seek a redistribution of utility produced that maximizes his individual utility . Again maintaining a certain level of motivation in others is sought.

The supply security of utility is itself a utility (or meta-utility if you wish) commonly sought.

One way to acquire this security is to compel a supplier either by violence or by obtaining commitment. A contract of paid employment is a way for two players to get a utility supply security by binding to a contractual commitment. The employer seeks to secure its supply of subordinate labor and the employee to secure its supply of money. In return each make commitments that limit their freedom. This is a tradeoff between two opposing utilities: freedom vis a vis others against security and support provided by others.

For many people security of supply is an important meta-utility that allows better enjoy multiple sources of value and achieve well-being . The absence of this security greatly reduces their welfare even in the presence of multiple sources of utility.

Individuals with greater power are aware of that and put this information to good use when sharing negotiations . Individuals with lesser power often accept unfavorable bargains. For example an employer has less strain on his freedom of movement . He smoothes his commitment to provide a steady income using his right to cancel his involvement in certain economic conditions ( market losses ... ) . By contrast, an employee has a more limited freedom of movement. The security of a fixed income over time deprives him of all or part of the increased wealth produced due to the reinvestment of a portion of the profits .

In addition to securing his supply of subordinate employment by contractual agreement , an employer multiplies his utility by making several simultaneous exchanges . He sells the work of many people, then distributes them some of the harvested utility. His own utility is a direct function of the number of employees.

The simultaneous exchange with several people is a convenient way to get great utility against a minimum life time spent and, often, effort .

A musician can perform at a concert a simultaneous exchange with dozens of people at once . Spectators are very happy to have spent $ 25 each and feel they have made a good deal . The musician is happy to have won $ 200 in two hours. It is a mutually beneficial exchange that poses few ethical problems , while wage labor is accepted mainly because of the imbalance of power and offers little real income security, even though many people make rationalizations about it.

From a "utility versus time & effort" yield point of view giving piano concerts is a lucrative business . Activities may have a high yield without necessarily require simultaneous exchanges . A rare and sought after talent can be redeemed against a lot of utility with little expense in time and effort. Executive coaching for example . If simultaneity is possible, this will further increase performance.

Beyond a certain return , an individual can consider that the expected income offsets the insecurity generated by the renunciation of paid employment . He became an entrepreneur.

For some people with a certain type of personality , the threshold is lower than for others. They are more likely to be entrepreneurs ( by choice) .

Some other people find that freedom by its own brings them enough welfare to offset much of the loss of security due to the renunciation of wage labor . If they had some way to meet their basic subsistence needs they would make the leap.

If these individuals are talented , it will be even easier to acquire high utility without the inconvenience of wage labor .

There are however more flexible work organizations where greater freedom is left to the workers in the management of their time and how to achieve the objectives without sacrificing the (seeming) stability of income contractually guaranteed . For some people this would be a good compromise.

Translated from french mainly by Google Translate (narraow) AI and some modifications of mine. This is still poor english. Sorry for that.

I have yet to see a plan, that would actually work for me. I would really love to quit my job, unfortunately I don't see a course of action that would give me enough confidence about my future to actually do it.

Also in case you'd like to live in a paradise valley taking Santo Daime (a religious ritual with DMT) about twice a week, you can do it with a salary of aproximatelly 500 dollars per month in Vale do Gamarra, where I just spent carnival, that is what the guy who drove us back did. Given Brazilian or Turkish returns on investment, that would cost you 50 000 bucks in case you refused to work within the land itself for the 500.

Can you elaborate on this? How would I actually do this and what would my future life be like?

It's a bit overrated, in my estimation. I left to live in tropical destination. I rented a car a spent a week scoping the place out. I slept in a youth hostel but basically lived out of my rented car. I brought only a backpack with me.

I was back home in less than two weeks. I saw some of the most beautiful things I'd ever seen (beaches, etc.) and it was quite literally like a dream come true. But it got boring quick.

I missed being close to my family and I was dating someone at the time who I also missed a great deal—both played a big part in my discontentment. Ultimately however, I think the novelty of vagabonding wears off very quick for certain types of people, like me.

Plus, as some have pointed out, "working a job" is kind of a loose notion. Figure out a balance where you can find time to engage in things you enjoy and meet your needs for resources. Everyone "works".

It's not so much protestant work ethic as the market revolution work ethic. Going to a building for a specified number of hours per week then getting a fixed salary is a fairly modern invention, and it has become normalized as the proper way to live in the US (unless you are exceptional).

Directing an NGO, giving free talks as an intellectual and couch surfing the world (which requires a fair bit of effort to do cheaply - the average person would rack up a huge bill) are not what I think about when I think about being "unemployed". Of course I would love to high status enough enough to do those things, and have something to fall back on when I'm done but I can't. Maybe when I'm done with my education and have been working for a few years I'll consider this.

Its expensive to get health insurance when you aren't buying with a group.