Because it's "slightly less money" than working in an office or flipping burgers (which a previous commenter suggested would be more economically sustainable kinds of employment).
Yes, you are still getting some money. But those jobs mentioned above are boring and poorly paid because they require little skill. They don't add a great deal of value to the business, and if someone quits or is promoted to do something more useful, it's easy to find and train another worker to replace them. Mostly what you're paying for is someone who will turn up on time every day and work for the length of a shift. There is not a huge wage differential based on experience because you can teach a completely inexperienced person the basics in a single day. So if you are selling graphic design services but charging the bare minimum required to hire a warm body, then "what you do" is essentially given away free.
It seems I can't reply to messages past a certain depth so I'll respond to your latest comment in the previous one.
The design website guy's name is Aurelio, and the person you were responding to who had said he would accept slightly less pay for work he enjoys is Robinson. When you replied to Robinson, were you really addressing Aurelio?
Also, are you making any assumptions about how long it takes Aurelio to make a design, and what might likely happen to him after having developed a professional reputation and portfolio. Also, if he does 5 designs a day 20 days a month, 100 designs, and makes $1500, is that really nothing compared to $54 a month, which is more than 40% of full time workers in Brazil (where he lives) make?
HN is configured to delay the reply as the thread gets longer, like a brake. You could reply to my previous message now, as you can probably see.
Of course I was replying to tlrobinson, who said :I'd rather do something I enjoy for slightly less money than get an office job or flip burgers. That was in reply to swombat's question about whether the design thing is sustainable economically.
In Brazil it may be, in the US it probably would not. I have no opinion about Aurelio or his $15 site (although I am pretty sure someone else will do the same thing for $12 soon). I am well aware that Brazil has a different kind of economy from the US; what he is doing may well be sustainable in Brazil - although the cost of having a western-style standard of living with a computer, reliable electricity, and internet access is much closer to the cost of living in the US than it is to people earning $54/month in a favela or rural area.
I also completely understand the idea of doing something you enjoy, even though it might pay less than a conventional job. That is why I was working for an email/groupware startup before NCSA released Mosaic, to give you one example. There are certainly times that you should be willing to take a big economic risk, and refine your skills even if it is hard to sell your product/service in the market right now. I am just pointing out that doing this can also become a limiting factor, because you are associating your service with very low cost. You would not go into a Burger King restaurant and pay $100 for your dinner. Even if they hired a great chef and actually made a gourmet meal, almost nobody would risk paying $100 to try it. Similarly, if you try to get a job in a top restaurant you will need something more persuasive than previous experience cooking at Burger King. You could be an excellent self-trained chef, but they will judge you by the price and quality of food at Burger King. You could say 'I made a lot of delicious meals for my friends and family, they said my food was great.' The restaurant owner will probably suggest you get your friends and family to help you open your own restaurant.
why? Because life is short and people are busy. They don't have time to judge every job applicant or supplier individually. Instead they will look at price information as a proxy for quality. This is why companies sometimes ask job applicants for a salary history, they want a simple filter. If you get a bank loan to expand your business, the bank will want to see the last few years' accounts for the same reason. They don't understand your business, but they do understand cash flow.
I think you might be misunderstanding his post. It's a pretty short post. He said that he is willing to work for a "slightly less" pay (slightly less likely means 1-5% less) doing something he enjoys than something he doesn't enjoy.
That sure sounds like a reasonable statement.
In your response, you stated that "you don't ask for money for what you do" and then proceeded to knock down that strawman.
Working without any pay at all is not the same as doing something you enjoy for "slightly less" than you would accept to do something you don't enjoy.
I think you're interpreting mine over-literally. I went on in the second sentence to make it clear that I was drawing a contrast with pay for 'the most basic labor,' so as to avoid confusion. Once again "what you do" is what distinguishes you from any other warm body in the workplace. The poster is not talking about opting to earn slightly less than he might in a variety of other popular careers, he's talking about opting to earn slightly less than he could get in an entry-level unskilled job.
In economic terms, his choice to sell his services below the labor market's lowest rate for doing anything at all has a significant opportunity cost, to say nothing of the fact that he still has overhead and so on. A person who gets paid nothing at all is losing money because s/he still has to eat, buy clothes and so on. A person paid the market minimum is making a very small amount of money after life's necessities have been paid for, which is why we don't think of burger-flipping as a profitable career choice. Anyone charging less than this is working for zero profit, unless they are lucky enough to have free rent, food and so on.
What do you call a business plan which does not acknowledge any need to make a profit? Would you invest in such a business?
