|>>|| No. 8866
I distinctly remember watching some video of some quality control people on an assembly line in the 70s or 80s testing electronics and thinking that if they had the radio on it would be my ideal job: boring, predictable, rote actions (plug it in, if it loads then box it, if it doesn't then chuck it) that you could do while daydreaming away to yourself. Unfortunately jobs like that no longer seem to exist (insofar as they ever did), so you're stuck with stuff that demands a much higher level of engagement and awareness, making it much more difficult to just compartmentalise away work and then come home to live your life.
Something like that seems much preferable to me (as a would be "creative" type) than the very popular idea of making your job your hobby. I've never liked that, since it would seem to logically follow that the opposite is also true: your hobby is now work. You can't take a break from it for a while and do something else, you can't pursue your own interests on a whim, you can't compartmentalise it as an escape from the bills and boredom of daily life. When you can't be bothered anymore, you're not just sick of work, you're sick of something you once loved.
Especially in the internet age, where you can make a living by streaming, or doing art, or whatever. You wind up piling on extra problems: You have to create for an audience and for an algorithm, rather than purely for yourself, and people who make a full time job out of their hobby can wind up crowding out those who're only in it for fun since they can afford higher production values, pushing everything in a more homogeneous direction as a result, discouraging people from taking a go at things themselves when they could just get a job and then pay someone else to do it on their behalf.
I suppose what I'm saying is: bring back the work-life balance and tedious manufacturing jobs. A very original and no-doubt unpopular proposal, but not one that's likely to make anybody rich.