ETA: that’d be Gandhi, not Ghandi. See ? He’s not even written right ! 
What people say about you at your funeral is ALSO not who you are, either. Few people eulogize someone by saying, “He was a dick who didn’t have the common sense his mama gave him. And his computer programming paid the bills, but it wasn’t all that.”
Some people think it matters to have a life philosophy and infuse meaning and significance in everything they do. And then other people see life as the sequence of events that play out the moment someone is born–nothing more and nothing less.
For me personally, I don’t particularly care about defining who I am. I yam what I yam–and the “yam” is enigmatic sometimes. The moment I become fixated on my identity, I’ve boxed myself in. And I leave myself open for existential crises.
A person can define themselves by the work they do, but then what do they do when they get laid off and have to flip burgers for a long time? Or if they retire or become injured and totally unemployable? When people hang their hats on the ephemeral, their egos are at risk.
Yes, but Gandhi had a very low grocery budget. He could afford to allow his life to be the message; didn’t have to mess around with being a lawyer all the time. If you’re going on hunger strikes to free India from Britain, then how much rice do you really need to keep in the cupboard anyway?
:: removes tongue from cheek ::
Not to mention the money he saved on salt.
Good point. And clothes.
Think of all the regrets you will have on your deathbed. Try to minimize them.
most people can’t do what they love, there isn’t enough demand in the global economy for that. Not only that, but what a person loves and what makes a job enjoyable are not always the same. The things that make a job enjoyable are a good challenge level, good coworkers, good bosses, good levels of self determination, etc. If you find a job that matches your values perfectly but your coworkers are all backstabbing assholes and you have no independence you won’t be happy.
I’ve met artists who earn a living making and selling art and my first thought was ‘wow you must love that’. You get to be creative, create your own hours, travel all the time, etc’. I’ve been told it isn’t that simple. You end up finding your niche and making endless variations of the same thing to tap into that financial niche. Tons of paperwork. Traveling when you want to be at home. etc. It isn’t as simple as it sounds.
Bill Clinton is going to die saying he wishes he’d spent more time at the office, but his office is politics and philantrophy.
The best situation in a ‘a job is a way to earn a living’ scenario is to work with other people who are laid back, friendly, who adopt the same philosophy and try to make the best of being somewhere they don’t want to be 8-10 hours a day.
Which one is greater for societal benefit? It is hard to say. Since most people ‘want’ to do something meaningful, which usually means philantrophy or social justice I would say that. But very few people truly want to work in a factory that manufactures antibiotics, or drive the semi that transports them, or stock them in the pharmacy, or be the pharmacist. But antibiotics are integral to life.
I think the most realistic method of doing it is to find a job you can tolerate (or possibly enjoy) even it if has nothing to do with your goals, and do the best to create a good work/life balance.
I’ve never heard of a person on their deathbed say:
“I wish I’d spent more time at the office”
Or:
“I wish I’d watched more TV.”
re: spending more time at the office.
I’ll bet there are people who said “I wish I provided better for my family”. Which may or may not be achieved by spending more time at the office.
This is a good thread and some great responses. I like to think of work as something in life I have to do in order to eat, not much different than stepping out of the way of a landslide or anything else I have no control over. How I choose to express myself in relationships, or creatively is what I do after work and is how I identify myself. When work is an extension of who we like to think we are that is a rare gift. But when life become an extension of what we do at work the I feel it can have adverse affects.
So what do they wish they did instead? Fact is, given the huge amounts of time spent watching TV and playing video games, it is not like the average person is going to have written the Great American Novel if they had only an hour more a day.
Sure people who work so long that they never even see their families is one thing. But for some people it is a balance of doing cool stuff at work and also doing cool stuff at home. And I can be creative in both places.
I think you underestimate how much an hour a day adds up.
You may not be able to churn out the Great American Novel, but you can put that time into that hobby you’re always putting off for the weekends. You can use it to train for a marathon. You can use to spend more time with people. You can read more books and do more research. All of these are potential peak experiences that you’re missing out on.
When I die, I’ll probably regret all the time I burned on the internet. That’s my “TV”.
“Live to work” vs “Work to live” is actually one of the cultural dimensions invented/discovered by the Dutch sociologist Geert Hofstede. He expresses it in broader terms, thinking of these as two poles on a continuum. His basic thesis is that this is a cultural phenomenon, taught by parents to children at a very early age, and differing by country, ethnicity, etc. Countries such as Japan, Italy, and Mexico come out high on the “Live to work” side while the Baltic countries, France, and Netherlands come out high on the “Work to live” side.
Obviously, individuals in a particular culture can be at extremes; he’s measuring the population in each country as following a normal curve distribution.
This is also the only one of his five cultural dimensions that is gender-related as well: women (in all cultures) tend more towards the “live to work” side, while men (in all cultures) tend more towards the “work to live” side. However, the most “live to work” women in Japan are still further to the “work to live” side than the most extreme men in Sweden, if you follow me.