Time to quit your pointless job, become morally ambitious and change the world
Debate over quitting office jobs and earning “$10k/month”
- One commenter claims office work is “slavery 2.0” and that making $10k/month independently within 6–9 months is easy; several others strongly dispute this as realistic only for a tiny minority, especially without rich networks or living in poorer countries/currencies.
- Critics point out global income constraints, lack of opportunity for most people, and ask what the other 90% (or 99%) are supposed to do.
- Some worry that celebrating solo online income encourages scams or low-value grifts, noting many established businesses already border on that.
Work, meaning, and moral decisions
- Several participants reject the article’s framing that your career is your central moral decision; for many, work is just a way to fund a life whose meaning lies elsewhere (family, community, hobbies).
- Others argue employment often advances someone else’s purposes and can feel empty, yet involuntary unemployment shows that work itself can provide structure and meaning.
- There’s substantial discussion about harmful-but-lucrative work: some stress that you can’t offset 40–50 hours of societal harm with token volunteering.
Moral ambition vs. practicality and family
- People with dependents emphasize obligations: stable jobs, donations, and local volunteering feel like the responsible “way to change the world.”
- Some read the article as dismissive of comfortable middle‑class parents, which others counter is misreading or just quoting the author’s provocation.
- Side hustles and co‑ops are suggested as middle paths, but time, burnout, and childcare tradeoffs are highlighted.
What is “moral,” and who decides?
- Several note that people do not agree on what “the right thing” is; attempts to remoralize society around one vision are compared to historical disasters.
- Others push back that this relativism would have left slavery or serfdom unchallenged.
- There’s concern about “moral crusades” turning into ideology and hubris; some prefer modest, local good over grand projects.
Systems, capitalism, and structural limits
- One line of discussion: self‑interest is a stronger driver than altruism; capitalism harnesses that, while no large system has successfully scaled “moral ambition.”
- Wealth inequality, billionaire power, and historical revolutions (including communist experiments) are debated, with disagreement over lessons and risks of radical redistribution.
Feasibility of mass “moral careers”
- Multiple commenters argue there aren’t enough obviously beneficial jobs for everyone; urging all to “change the world” may just create a new individualist grindset.
- Some say real large‑scale change is inherently collective; yet modern education, work structures, and social media isolate people and undermine the kind of teams that past moral movements relied on.