Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
On a tangent, I was a bit confused by the everyday examples given in this article.

"We're often faced with similar trade-offs. You want a meal that's both cheap and delicious? A job that's both well-paid, easy, and fulfilling?"

I really don't feel like "easy" is a dimension I wish to optimize for in a job. It almost feels opposite to what I've actually optimized for - since for me a fulfilling job usually means full of deep technical challenges. I want a job without unnecessary friction, without interpersonal drama, even one that's low stress. But definitely not easy.

  > I want a job without unnecessary friction, without interpersonal drama, even one that's low stress.
That's part of how I see an "easy" job. Where I can focus on working on the actual tasks at hand.

Doesn't matter if the actual job is filling glasses of water or building rockets; as long as I can focus on it for 100% of my working hours, I'd see it as an "easy" job.

I get what you’re saying, but I wouldn’t say easy is the opposite of challenging. As a quick example, I would surely find a day job of manual labor harder and significantly less enjoyable than a day job of software engineering challenges.

(And please note that I do not mean to imply that there are no challenges in manual labor or that software engineering is more important.)

loading story #49199181
They’re just hypothetical examples, not meant to apply to everyone.
It sounds like you're saying "easy" and "fulfilling" cannot coexist, and obviously they are in tension, but a Pareto frontier still exists there.
Well then, you would prioritize "fulfilling" in your utility function. Others might make a different choice; e.g. a single parent who needs to save time and energy for family might prefer "easy" at the cost of boring drudgery
loading story #49198714
Felt like covert advertisements.
loading story #49199075