It's a piece of advice that everyone from Steve Jobs to Oprah Winfrey has doled out: Do what you love. But according to Miya Tokumitsu writing in Jacobin, this popular mantra "leads not to salvation, but to the devaluation of actual work, including the very work it pretends to elevate—and more importantly, the dehumanization of the vast majority of laborers." In defending this claim, she betrays an ignorance both of basic economics and of how the world has improved over the past few hundred years.
It is true that doing what you love remains a privilege in the world today. For most people living in poor countries, it is an impossibility. Even for poorer people in the wealthier parts of the world, it remains difficult. But for many, many people—and many more people with each passing year, despite what Tokumitsu implies—it is a real possibility thanks to the world's explosive economic growth since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. Due to modern technology, instead of nearly everyone being involved in agriculture, only a percentage or two of the population is needed to produce the food we need. With increasing mechanization, manufacturing too now requires far fewer hands to build more and better stuff.
As a result of this stunning progress, much of the world is far wealthier than it used to be. This doesn't just mean that many of us can consume more; it also means that many more people can pursue work that is intellectually or artistically stimulating. It will of course be even better when we have become wealthy enough that people the world over will have access to better, more fulfilling work. But it is already worth recognizing and celebrating, and I don't see how doing so implies any dehumanization of those who still labour at tedious or back-breaking jobs.
As for devaluing the work it pretends to elevate, what Tokumitsu means is that people who love what they do are sometimes willing to do it for less money, which in her eyes is a sure sign of exploitation. But how much people earn at different jobs depends on a great number of factors. One of them is that if a lot of people find a certain kind of work enjoyable—say, writing—but there is only enough market demand for a small fraction of them, then many (typically those with comparatively less talent or experience) will be willing to work for less money. There is nothing sinister in this, just simple supply and demand.
Fortunately for people like me, many of us in the industrialized world, even if we aren't wealthy, are generally wealthy enough to make this trade-off. If we want to, we can work at part-time jobs that allow us to live modestly by modern standards (but very well by historical standards) while we pursue the work that we find more completely satisfying, that we perhaps consider to be a calling. Working for less money for a while doesn't mean that I'm being exploited, and pursuing my personal happiness doesn't mean that I don't care about the plight of those with fewer opportunities—especially those who live in countries with substantially less freedom, and hence less wealth. Indeed, in my case, I hope that the ideas I write about can help us all become even freer and wealthier than ever.
As a result of this stunning progress, much of the world is far wealthier than it used to be. This doesn't just mean that many of us can consume more; it also means that many more people can pursue work that is intellectually or artistically stimulating. It will of course be even better when we have become wealthy enough that people the world over will have access to better, more fulfilling work. But it is already worth recognizing and celebrating, and I don't see how doing so implies any dehumanization of those who still labour at tedious or back-breaking jobs.
As for devaluing the work it pretends to elevate, what Tokumitsu means is that people who love what they do are sometimes willing to do it for less money, which in her eyes is a sure sign of exploitation. But how much people earn at different jobs depends on a great number of factors. One of them is that if a lot of people find a certain kind of work enjoyable—say, writing—but there is only enough market demand for a small fraction of them, then many (typically those with comparatively less talent or experience) will be willing to work for less money. There is nothing sinister in this, just simple supply and demand.
Fortunately for people like me, many of us in the industrialized world, even if we aren't wealthy, are generally wealthy enough to make this trade-off. If we want to, we can work at part-time jobs that allow us to live modestly by modern standards (but very well by historical standards) while we pursue the work that we find more completely satisfying, that we perhaps consider to be a calling. Working for less money for a while doesn't mean that I'm being exploited, and pursuing my personal happiness doesn't mean that I don't care about the plight of those with fewer opportunities—especially those who live in countries with substantially less freedom, and hence less wealth. Indeed, in my case, I hope that the ideas I write about can help us all become even freer and wealthier than ever.