fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3431 ]

[ SECRET POST #3431 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3431 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

[J.R.R. Tolkien's The Silmarillion]

__________________________________________________

03.

[Wil Wheaton]

__________________________________________________

04.

[Mughal-E-Azam]

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 07 secrets from Secret Submission Post #490.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Does this change if they rely on someone else for income/necessities?

I certainly have no moral objection to the idea.

There aren't enough jobs for everyone. And honestly, I don't care. As long as everything is getting done that needs to get done, it doesn't matter to me whether someone is working or not. I don't see working as some great moral imperative that it is wrong not to do.

>There aren't enough jobs for everyone.

I agree with this. There's no reason for some billionaire to be working retail or something when someone who really needs the money could be getting paid.

If they don't rely on someone else (like, they are independently wealthy or have some kind of other automatic income from investments or inheritance or whatever), that's fine. I don't understand it, because I would be bored out of my skull and feel useless, but nothing wrong with it.

If they depend on someone else, it's kind of douchey and iffy, unless the person is a billionaire or something.

(BTW, I believe being a homemaker for a spouse or raising children counts as "work" too.)

I don't

Depends on why they aren't working (I assume you mean employed out of the house.) If they're staying home to raise kids, no problemo. If they're staying home because they have some kind of other income that doesn't rely on them working, fine and dandy. If they're staying home because for whatever reason their partner feels fine about being the sole breadwinner, whatever, that's their affair as a couple and if it works for them, hey, great. If they refuse to work because they feel entitled to someone else's financial support without giving anything really worthwhile in return, they're a selfish mooch, but that's their and whoever is supporting them's issue to deal with (unless it's to abusive levels, and then the supporting person should probably get some help.)

Now, I do feel that a person who doesn't have some kind of gainful or meaningful employment should be doing something else useful with themselves, whether that be housewifin' it up like a boss, volunteering somewhere worthwhile, raising some kick-ass kids, studying something, or working on a productive hobby of some kind. But it's not like I have the right to fuss and fume about it if they don't. It's their life.

Edited 2016-05-27 01:36 (UTC)

I don't know anyone who isn't disabled or chronically who doesn't want to work. Even if they have lazy days, everyone likes doing something. It's just an issue of wanting to get paid well enough, and not stuck in a job that's horrible in every way.

Yeah, I think even people who don't have steady "jobs" usually do some work, whether it's running some small personal business for crafts or something or volunteering or being involved in caretaking/administration for some kind of institution, or a household.

Who was that guy who said "Work is great. Jobs can go fuck themselves."?

I don't know anyone who isn't disabled or chronically who doesn't want to work.

Speaking as someone who is both - I want to work. This crappy body barely lets me function, though.

I agree, most people naturally want to contribute something. those that don't are outliers.

I don't like the fact that I have to work to support them. If they're getting government help, my tax money is going towards that government check. Why should I have to help supply them with free money when I have to work for mine?

If they have their own money, fine. If they have other people supporting them, fine. If I have no part in supporting them, I don't care how they get their money. I think it's selfish and kind of a dick move to have other people provide for you when you're perfectly capable of it yourself, but it's not my problem how they live their lives.

I don't know if I could do it because I think I'd get bored and feel guilty even if I won a big lotto jackpot or something, but if they're not judging others who don't work I don't care. People who have lots of money, don't work, and judge people on welfare/disabled people to be lazy good for nothings can fuck off, though.

What, you mean that mythical thing they call retirement? Lolz it doesn't exist.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #3431 ]

What do you think of people who are able to work but don't?

Re: What do you think of people who are able to work but don't?

Re: What do you think of people who are able to work but don't?

Re: What do you think of people who are able to work but don't?

Re: What do you think of people who are able to work but don't?

Re: What do you think of people who are able to work but don't?

Re: What do you think of people who are able to work but don't?

Re: What do you think of people who are able to work but don't?

Re: What do you think of people who are able to work but don't?

Re: What do you think of people who are able to work but don't?

Re: What do you think of people who are able to work but don't?

Re: What do you think of people who are able to work but don't?

Re: What do you think of people who are able to work but don't?

Re: What do you think of people who are able to work but don't?