IF MONEY DIDN'T MATTER...

Oh man! You went to the Fatic bike building class? How did you like it?

To answer the question, if money was no object I would just make things, lots of things. Anything from modern furniture (instead of movie theater furniture and arena seating like I do now) to bikes (I’ve been thinking of the Fatic school or the Yamaguchi school), to footwear/softgoods.

I loved it, I highly recommend Doug’s class. He’s very thorough and a perfectionist - so, a good guy to learn from. Building a frame was a lot harder than I anticipated, and the class was stressful at times, but well worth it. Message me if you’d like, I’d be happy to elaborate or answer questions.

Noah, what kind of flux is this?

Gasflux. Paste Flux & Powder Flux On Gasflux Co.

Watching a master frame builder at work is an amazing thing to see. Here in Minneapolis we’re blessed to have several legendary builders doing everything from purpose built utility rigs to race bikes to touring and even some custom carbon fiber. If you ever see a custom builder, ask or a shop tour. It’s quite an education.

While it’s pretty much identical to Gasflux, the brand is actually Cycle Design

It’s a little bit nicer - it dries quickly at the start of the braze (which leads to less flow and loss of flux).

I totally agree! Watching Doug Fattic braze is almost like magic. Here in Chicago I’m lucky to share a bike building studio with Levi Borrenson and Michael Catano

I’d love to go visit other masters in other states. I’ll have to swing by Minneapolis!

Huh. Thought everyone used Gasflux…

A few Minneapolis builders to checkout:
http://peacockgroove.com/ (just nuts… but an amazing builder)
http://www.chriskvalecycles.com/CKC/Home.html (a legend among builders)
http://www.curtgoodrich.com/
http://applemanbicycles.com/ (custom carbon)
http://www.capricornbicycles.com/ (formerly of Minneapolis, now of North Carolina)

There’s many more, and a culture and industry to back it all. It’s amazing here…

Back on topic:
I’d be a frame builder, for sure.
Or own a coffee shop. I don’t know why that’s always been a dream of mine. It just seems like fun to me.

In light of this topic, this article is of interest:

In the Name of Love: Elites embrace the “do what you love” mantra. But it devalues work and hurts workers.

"“Do what you love” disguises the fact that being able to choose a career primarily for personal reward is a privilege, a sign of socioeconomic class. "

Along those lines: this book is against the whole “find your passion” route of employment. An interesting read, for sure.

Pretty ironic coming from a writer.

And her conclusions could be considered a bit of an overreach.

The author’s examples of Doing What You Love are all corporate / industry related. There is no mention of the small baker, flower shop, or the down-on-your-luck driven entrepreneur who starts their own business. These are people that create jobs for others. They create opportunities for others to follow their dreams too.

My take on the article isn’t ‘don’t follow your passion’, it is ‘in following your passion, don’t be taken advantage of’.

In a desirable field, with limited opportunities, people with financial resources can take the unpaid internships etc. so get an advantage that isn’t merit/ talent based.
The “Do What you Love” issue is then people with the resources put it all down to ‘following your passion’ rather than, for example, realising mum & dad financially supported them, and the article is stating this advice is hurting those without the resources.

One example. When I was a poor scumbag student in a recession in the early 1990’s, an 18 year old started a cosmetics company in Melbourne and made millions, won accolades and acclaim. Held up as an example of hard work and entrepreneurship etc. The founder started the company because her boyfriend, heir to a fashion fortune, lent her $40,000.
Now, great business story, obvious talent that led to success, but how much luck and privilege were involved? Not everyone has access to a boyfriend who can afford to pony up $40k. Claiming that it was just hard work and passion doesn’t take into account the advantages this person had. You don’t want a system based on privilege, you want it based on merit and ability. That’s the danger the article is warning about with ‘follow your passion’.

I don’t understand this. Especially in light of you and I discussing this first world problem. Am I supposed to handcuff myself to the lowest common denominator? And if I have access to more resources, wouldn’t merit and ability drive the use of those resources to a successful or unsuccessful end?

I’d say mostly, if not all, luck. For every person you can show being successful with their $40K, I can show you 100 who pissed it away. So again, why exactly should someone be penalized for having access to resources?

I like this interpretation, I totally agree.

Yes - a first world problem.
Yes - Use whatever resources/ advantages/ abilities/ contacts you have.

Look at it more from the point of view of an employer. This is very broad, but assuming each level of wealth in society has the same spread of abilities:
Matrix 1.jpg
you’d want a system that gets the best abilities for your investment- 400% out of 400% for ability:
Matrix 2.jpg
if you have a system (unpaid internships etc.) that only gives high earners access, you aren’t getting the best abilities for your investment, 250% out of 400% for ability:
Matrix 3.jpg
Like I said, very broad, that said, if money didn’t matter, I’d of course take all sorts of unpaid internships, become a class traitor, and be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.

Sanjy: we need to give you an award for the first time I’ve seen someone use an excel spreadsheet on the forums!

It’s a good point though.

I think the business case for employer or employee is interesting.

For the employer, they are always driving to hire employees with lower ability. It drives labor costs down as it expands the labor supply - “everyone” can dig ditches, not everyone can be a rocket scientist.

As a designer, I have played directly into this by designing ease of use into products. 20 years ago, you needed a PhD to sequence genes. I have designed that ability out of the process. Now you need a 2-week course to run a machine that will sequence genes. There is no doubt that technology has devalued labor.

The perspective of the employee is different. What I don’t care for in the article you posted is the position that value for the employee is purely monetized. For technology devaluing labor, I think you can make the case that value is based on money/cost. I don’t think you can make the case for people.

It is simply because doing what you “love” has value. I can’t give you an exact monetary value of “love”, but there is no doubt it is there and you can substitute that love of doing something for money. In the first world, it is easier to take advantage of that. Not everyone wants a 10,000 sq ft McMansion with a Ferrari in the driveway. Personally, I would take 3 weeks of unpaid vacation if I could but my company does not allow it. You can use the resources available to you to suit your own needs.

So whether a person comes from “privilege” or they don’t need all of the trappings offered in the world, the outright bashing the author of that articles does of working for love is at best an extremely narrow point of view or at worst just plain misinformed.

The author doesn’t even get into how people are motivated. Some are motivated by extrinsic rewards like money while others are motivated to the best of their ability by intrinsic values like doing the job itself. Most research shows that working for extrinsic rewards leads to burnout and lower performance, but that is for another thread. Again, I think bashing a practice with a limited point of view serves no purpose.

I don’t know if I understood all correctly but the above point seems to be more globally about socialism vs. capitalism. Here in the Netherlands it’s more of a social system where people with lower income have much more access to higher education, so more of a social mix is stimulated rather than keeping all rich people together with the rich people and ditto for the poor ones. This social system where everyone is taken care of does make everyone a little ‘soft’ - people lack a healthy natural sense of competitiveness, drive, and creativity. Just my 2 cents being from the Netherlands and having lived in the US as well.

About love, it’s kind of a delusion. Doing what you love is such a momentary snapshot. You can love one thing but then it confronts you a bit too much and the love dissipates. Instead, the mantra should be ‘love what you do’. Or better, simply love everything. Even the evil and demonic forces. When you find an inner acceptance of how things already are you will find that there can be a great opening of heart and inflow of love for everything that’s already there. And when that’s there, change may still happen. But people in general seem to be afraid that when they accept everything, nothing will change anymore. But instead, life’s energy becomes higher and change takes place more often because there is less attachment. When one sees that, one will become more open to working with the fear inside and seeing that as the only obstacle to love. When you use the mantra ‘Do what you love’ you have to take a moment to think about what that would be, which is away from what you are already doing, probably. In that going away from this moment you already find yourself in a delusion because you’re picturing something in your head which is never how it’s actually going to be. So no need to imagine so much :slight_smile: The doer that we all carry with us is not even that interesting, our worldly tasks are just a small part of our being. I think that for most people, if the physical needs are taken care of, they are completely fine already, they just think they aren’t.

What would I do with money? I don’t know, it would be nice if I had a direct interface between my brain as it’s dreaming up all kinds of creations at night, and that I had a specialized team of minions who would the next day gather all these ideas and make it happen for me. Maybe just a huge virtual 3d printer where I can create things using my brainwaves and my entire body, perhaps, and an unlimited supply of raw materials and interactive components. And then I can simulate how it works, say ‘bake it’ and it’s there. More realistically though, I’m fine. I would probably just use the money to invest in new innovations. And do artistic work for fun.

derailing this back to the original question, money no option, I’d design cars, boats and planes and work with engineers and custom fabricators to have one offs built…

You MUST get that built.