You're reading for free via Pax Ahimsa Gethen's Friend Link. Become a member to access the best of Medium.
Member-only story
Redefining Work
The fallacy of equating working, making money, and earning a living
Jobs are not big enough for people. When you ask most people who they are, they define themselves by their jobs: “I’m a doctor.” “I’m a radio announcer.” “I’m a carpenter.” If someone asks me, I say, “I’m Amanda McKenny. At certain points in time, I do things for a living.” — Working
When I was 16 years old, I got my first “real job”. I became a rehearsal pianist for the Pittsburgh Playhouse, where I’d previously taken classes in acting and musical theater. I worked there a few hours each week for minimum wage, which in 1986 was less than four dollars per hour. It wasn’t much, but I preferred it to babysitting or any other job that I might have been expected to do at that age.
One of the musicals we put on was Working, which included the quoted passage at the start of this article. Ten years later, I had the privilege of seeing a production of Working in Berkeley while sitting just feet away from Studs Terkel, the author of the book that musical was based on.
By then I’d had several full-time jobs, none of them particularly enjoyable. But each paid more than the previous, and — importantly — came with sick leave and health insurance. I didn’t have an actual career yet, but at least I was earning a living.
The unexpected trajectory of my life in the following decades prompted me to think more about the meaning of work. It occurred to me that as a US-American, I was taught that work, making money, and earning a living are all part of one’s job or, preferably, career, which one is expected to engage in until retirement age. I now see these three concepts as entirely separate.
Work — which I define loosely from my own perspective, not the dictionary¹ — is the performance of any activity that isn’t purely for one’s personal pleasure. (Though performing work can, and ideally should, be pleasurable at least some of the time.) Work doesn’t have to be paid, either in money or in trade. Homework is work. House work is work. Volunteer work is work.
Making money can take many forms, only some of which involve work. One can accrue interest on a bank deposit, win a cash prize, or get an inheritance, for example. One can also cheat, swindle, or steal, though some might consider some forms of these activities to be work.
Earning a living is normally taken to mean making enough money at your job to pay for your regular expenses. It is not a guaranteed result of work, even if that work is full-time. Farm workers and many other so-called “unskilled” laborers toil for long hours under miserable conditions for abysmal pay. Meanwhile, here in San Francisco, where the median rent is currently over $3300/month, an individual earning less than $105,000 a year is considered “low income”.
For most of the past 15 years, I have not made enough money to pay my expenses. I have had various paid gigs and part-time employment, but if it weren’t for the support of my spouse and our rent-controlled apartment, I could not afford to live in the SF Bay Area.
So no, I have not been “earning a living”. I’ve long hated it when people ask me what I do for a living, even though the question is (usually) well-intended, and I try to avoid asking people this myself. Like Amanda McKenny, the quoted character from Working, I no longer wish to define myself by my job.
But why do we need to connect living with paid employment? I recall a conversation on social media some time ago where one person said that everyone needs employment. Another responded that no, everyone needs food, clothing, shelter, and health care. We just happen to have a society where in order to get these things, you (normally) need to be employed in a job.
In the wealthiest country on Earth, home to over 800 billionaires, you literally have to “earn” the right to survive.
Note that these insights are hardly original. I first began seriously questioning the mainstream US-American attitude toward work when I read Your Money or Your Life over 20 years ago. I’ve made attempts to follow this program,² but neither my ex nor current spouse have been on board with it.
I’ve also read two recent essays here on Medium, by Ryan Frawley and Peter Kovalsky, respectively, questioning views and values regarding work:
Thinking over my 54 years of existence, the most satisfying work I’ve done is volunteer editing on Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. I’ve done this work for over 16 years with no financial compensation. I would not want to be paid for my Wikipedia work even if it were offered to me, as a matter of integrity.³ I was proud to be recognized by the Wikimedia Foundation last year, but I would continue to contribute to the encyclopedia even without the accolades.
Though it is unlikely to ever happen in our capitalist society without a revolution, I support the concept of a Universal Basic Income for all residents. As explained in this recent newsletter by the Black and non-binary lead firm MMG Earth, UBI frees people from worrying over meeting their basic survival needs, enabling them to contribute to society with more creativity and satisfaction.
Despite criticism, studies have shown that receiving a basic income does not make people lazy and unwilling to work; it produces positive outcomes. Sadly, here in San Francisco, a pilot program providing guaranteed income to trans folks became the target of lawsuits by conservative groups, alleging illegal favoritism toward Black, Latine, and Indigenous applicants. The program — which was supported by my previous employer, the San Francisco Office of Transgender Initiatives — is not being renewed.
I might not live to see a time when work is radically redefined and wealth is redistributed to create a society that is truly livable for everyone. But that doesn’t stop me from dreaming and advocating for a better future. I am not ready to give up hope in humanity’s ability to change and evolve for the better. That hope is the only thing that keeps me going in this bleak, violent world.
- People citing dictionary definitions of words to make a point is a pet peeve of mine. Seriously, unless you’re writing specifically about language, linguistics, or Merriam-Webster’s “word of the year”, it looks petty and amateurish.
- YMOYL is a comprehensive, multi-step program, but in the popular media it has been misrepresented and oversimplified to counting every penny and investing in U.S. Treasury Bonds. There is much more to it than this.
- Paid editing is permitted on the English Wikipedia, but is considered a conflict of interest, and must be disclosed.
