Somewhat Less Random Thoughts ...

Is that even possible?

Like being "very unique" or "a little dead," can random be qualified?  I mean, if it's truly random, then ... Well, I digress.


So a Facebook Friend posted a link to a Slate article that reminded me of an earlier set of "random thoughts" here.


"DWYL [Do What You Love] is a secret handshake of the privileged and a worldview that disguises its elitism as noble self-betterment," writes author Miya Tokumitsu.  "According to this way of thinking, labor is not something one does for compensation but is an act of love. If profit doesn’t happen to follow, presumably it is because the worker’s passion and determination were insufficient. Its real achievement is making workers believe their labor serves the self and not the marketplace."

This being Slate, we eventually swerve to a crypto-socialist agenda, although interestingly providing a backlash at the "liberal elite" who wave the DWYL banner.  "With the vast majority of workers effectively invisible to elites busy in their lovable occupations," Tokumitsu says, listing all of the base labor, from growing, harvesting, and shipping food to emptying the wastebaskets of her example, Steve Jobs, "How can it be surprising that the heavy strains faced by today’s workers—abysmal wages, massive child care costs, etc.—barely register as political issues even among the liberal faction of the ruling class?"

Then, while we're lobbying for $15-an-hour McDonald's workers, the article also takes an odd swerve into complaining about the injustice of how PhDs are treated.  Really?  I guess getting that doctorate -- a serious investment of time and money only required by a narrow swath of professions -- falls under DWYL, but then we're saying you should be paid more and treated better for DWYL, while we're arguing that DWYL is a self-indulgent delusion of the leftist wealthy uberclass?

Fortunately, she moves on: "Ironically, DWYL reinforces exploitation even within the so-called lovable professions, where off-the-clock, underpaid, or unpaid labor is the new norm: reporters required to do the work of their laid-off photographers, publicists expected to pin and tweet on weekends, the 46 percent of the workforce expected to check their work email on sick days. Nothing makes exploitation go down easier than convincing workers that they are doing what they love."

Uh, okay.  Point made, and I can't help (in some way) to agree with the above, but more because of the trend than the specifics.  (I check my email, post to my job's Facebook, and do all sorts of things beyond just showing up for work hours.)  Some of what is listed is a sign of enthusiasm and dedication, not excessive demands by the boss ... but that may all be a question of tone rather than content.

And this all appears to bring me back to where we started -- not with the Slate article, before that.  I digressed.  Tokumitsu's thoughts were an interesting exercise, but her solutions seem as oddly skewed as the ones she complains about.  She misses the possibility of those who do love their jobs, even if it involves driving cabbages to market, in her complaints about wages and hours and work conditions, and also remains blind to those who may not have chosen the job they have for love, but have chosen to try to love the job they have.

And we end up back where we began.  Well, that was random ...