Comment by cratermoon
5 years ago
> while still meeting professional obligations
The unstated and unexamined assumption here is that professional obligations trump leisure and enjoyment. Do they? If so, why?
5 years ago
> while still meeting professional obligations
The unstated and unexamined assumption here is that professional obligations trump leisure and enjoyment. Do they? If so, why?
I mean, you could choose a different employer with lower expectations or reduced obligations if that's an option where you live. But no employer is required to keep you employed if you don't get your work done. It may be harder to fire people in some places and in some industries, but it's rarely impossible. If you want to be able to have leisure and enjoyment, you probably need money, which means being employed, and to remain employed you need to meet your obligations.
So be unproductive and risk getting fired but go home at a reasonable time. Be unproductive and work long hours to meet the obligations and not get your leisure and enjoyment. Or be efficient and go home at a reasonable hour and have your leisure and enjoyment. I choose the third, because it's sensible. Unlike my 90-hour workweek colleagues who stress about everything.
Do you have a trust fund?
No, and you raise a good point. Someone with a trust fund or other form of inherited wealth, or just with sufficient passive income, doesn't need to be productive. That person can claim as much leisure time as they want, when they want. So the argument the author of the post makes, that productivity is a necessary precondition for leisure, is really not true at all. In our society we may find that money and income are preconditions, but there's nothing inherent about the need for productivity to have those.