I you are correct. Also, I think the reason the concept of the 4-hour work week touches a nerve with people is that there are sooooooo many bad managers and bosses out there. When you're getting dumped on, it doesn't really make you want to do the tedious tasks for the greater good of the organization.

Another reason that the title affects people is that people want more control over their time. Under the currect industrial-age work model, you have to stay at work whether there is work to do or not, which sucks. I telecommute and have a great boss. I am more than willing to go that extra mile, because on the days when I have less to do, my extra time is mine.

This is really funny.  We were just having a conversation about how lame Tim Ferris is last night.  One of my buddies made the point that if you put this book in the hands of the wrong person, it can literally ruin their life! 

Thanks for the timely post, Jonathan.

@RyanHealy - Anything "in the hands of the wrong person" can ruin their life. I'm sure you'd agree we could say the same about a lot of the advice BC publishes. So why, again, is Tim Ferris lame? Oh- I agree him winning that championship on a technicality was lame, but let's talk about the business side...

@JonathanMead - I'm glad you mentioned what you *did* learn from the book, I think anyone who reads it thinking they can cut down their "work" to 4 hrs/wk is the "wrong person". As Brian mentioned, 4HWW book was more to get people to think out of the box.

Your post seems to be more of a focus on how to define work, which makes sense, but the controversial title definitely helps!

Cheers!

@Scott Messinger - The key is to balance the stress you get from working at a job you dislike, against the stress you get from having a much smaller paycheck (or none at all). Find the balance that works for you.

Thanks for bringing this up. Many people have interests that cannot generate money and will never make money. Also many people have no interest in the tasks being offered employers that do earn money. What folks like Jonathan Mead forget is that not everyone can get excited about the work employers are offering them to do for a salary. Most jobs offered by employers today are tedious, few are interesting and even less are fulfilling. This also doesn’t include employer’s efforts to make formally “enjoyable” jobs into “miserable” jobs through the last 20 years (so they can save money on salaries).

I think the current "40-70 hour work week" is great for people who want to "make a difference" and "be on the team", the world needs these kinds of people. But what no one mentions is how other large groups of people have no place in the "40-70 hour work week" lifestyle. These people will never have the right personality or interest no matter how hard they try. In the end it amounts to “acting” for 40-70 hours a week just to stay employed. Even actors are allowed to “get out of character”, but not the poor office deweller, he has to be “on” Monday through Friday. But, how else are these people going to earn a living? Sure there are some alternative arrangements such as consulting or starting your own business, but let’s be real and understand that a large portion of the population is NOT suited for pretty much the only available lifestyle choice that has health insurance.

For example: I could do my current job in less than 40-70 hours, but I have to be "on call" to justify my salary and benefits. Fine you say, just become a consultant. Well the company could just as easily pay someone who is more desperate for a job and willing to take less money to do the stuff I don't want to do (and the employer will let me go in the process). Employees can't set the terms of employment unless they bring something truly unique to the employment table. But without proper work experiences the majority of employees cannot develop such skills to barter with over their entire career. So what happens is that people "take what they can get" and then build on the "skills development path" that was "offered" to them by their employer.

I would argue that 99% of "skills development paths" being offered by employers are soul stealing and death dealing tasks (bad for physical health). If you get lucky or know someone you can find an employer offering "skills development paths" that are pleasant and fulfilling. But I like to point out, that those opportunities are not abundant and there will always be more qualified applicants than there are positions. So, most will have to take a job doing something they hate, and then build up their skills to get pay increases which exceed or meet inflation for 20-50 years.

Many times you have to be offered a “first opportunity” to expand and grow upon. Many people never get their “break” despite trying and genuinely having the ability to do that thing they are chasing after. Maybe Jonathan Mead is still young enough or “talented” enough to have a shot at garnering a “break” from a good employer. At some point we will all be over the hill and past the age where someone is willing to give us a shot. It’s not about being safe or lazy; it’s all about an employer giving the “first opportunity”. There are plenty of folks who blew their “chance” and “wasted” the opportunity, but there are 100 times more people who NEVER got a “chance” and really didn’t have an opportunity to waste in the first place. There are more crappy jobs out there than there are good jobs out there. Getting a good one is just another type of “lottery” (albeit more like Horse racing than the lotto, where you need to study and know the rules to have a chance at winning).

@Jonathan Mead - Seeing *employers* as the ones that dictate opportunities. If you develop your proficiency to a stellar level, *you* can dictate the opportunities. Whether that by negotiating with an employer, or through being self-employed.

This is where we disagree. "Self validation" is not good enough to secure contract work or full-time employment. Only proof through "paid employment" validates produced work. Its like when an employer asks to see you last pay stub in order to confirm a job offer. Many companies withdraw offers from people who refuse to comply with the pay stub request. Thats not to say it doesn't happen. But that was the point of my post, to point out the "likley" vs. "unlikely"

@Miles - "True if my passion is watching TV and eating cheetos, probably not going to get a paying gig for that"

Once again this goes back to the issue of "skills development paths" being offered by employers. If you have a bad job, but have not been exposed to "other" ways of earning money, guess what your passion will be? (i.e. watching TV and eating cheetos, because you don't know anything else). People end up in jobs they hate for most of their careers because no one exposed them to other ways of earning money or gave them a chance for exposure. Second, without true full-time work exposure they cannot accurately assess "what they need to do next" to get that "passion" based career going. Last, without proper "external validation" they will not be able to get other employers to utilize their newly founded skills imbued with passion.

First you have to see and peripherally experience something you want to do, FIRST HAND. For example: a admin at a local city finds out that being a City planner is an interesting job, but would never really know how City Planners do their job unless she worked for them directly. On the other hand, if she is an admin at an insurance company her "experience" will result in less exposure to the field she is better suited for. Thus ending in an “automatically miserable” experience without recourse for alternative career exploration.

Second someone has to externally “validate” the experience. For example: a person goes to school and studies web design. They have been building their own sites for years and have a sizable portfolio. However they have no professional experience and they have never worked in an office setting or in any professional capacity. So the employer shoehorns them into web site maintenance and IT type tasks leaving the interesting design portion to “established” designers with “validated” successes. The problem here is that no one professionally “validated” their work, which may not be good enough to be a designer. The employer made the decision on how to employ those skill sets, however it’s not their role to get that person into design, they hired them as a pseudo IT person.

Third someone has to pay for services based on the previously “validated” experience. For example: A relatively talented photographer has put together a nice portfolio, but has never worked in the industry. So he sends out unsolicited request for publication opportunities or even directly sends in his work. However a season photographer with “validated” experienced uses the same methods and receives paid contract work. Assuming both are doing “equal” work the one not having “validated” will not likely get contract “paying” jobs.

The premise of your rant is the same thing you rant about - semantics. You can't call one person a liar based on YOUR definition of work when they have defined work the same way the entire time. It's especially ridiculous to then define work as the very thing that his definition allows.

Oh, forget it. Enjoy your own semantic circular logic.

Nice one. Just found this. Funnily enough I wrote a post called Is Lifestyle Design Making You Miserable? a month or so ago. Most of what is written is so unachievable it will make people unhappy.

my post closes with this thought... If you read the book carefully Tim does not lie to us, but he does let us lie to ourselves…