|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Oct 13, 2017 18:03:48 GMT
The motivation is different, but the motivation isn't at all the point. The time budgeting is. Boomer is not making money while doing some of his sports watching. He has to budget his sports watching time apart from a 40+ hour work week just like anyone else would. Sure but my point is that *part* of it is done on the clock, while getting paid. I never said all of it. For the common Joe who is not a Sports professional, *all* of it would have to be on his own time (unless the person is fooling the boss which can only take someone so far; at one point the person is caught and fired). You do implicitly acknowledge it when you say "wouldn't be making money while doing some of his sports watching. That implies that he *is* making money while doing some of it too; the other part. To recap - let's say Boomer watches and commentates sports for a living 20 hours per week. The other 20 hours his work involves other activities (such as traveling from place to place, getting ready, etc.). And then he needs to spend additional hours beyond these 40, say, 20 more, watching sports without being paid. That's a total of 60 hours, of which he is watching/commentating sports for 40 hours (20 on the clock, 20 on his own). Now, if a common Joe with a different profession wants to watch and commentate sports for 40 hours per week, that person would need to do all 40 on his own, in addition to his other 40 hours of working time. That's 80. So the common Joe would need a significantly more strained schedule to be able to do as much sports watching/commentating as Boomer. Clear, now, right? This is why the Boomer example is not ideal, although it does show that people *can* do it. I grant you that. When I write multiple times that he works more than 40 hours per week where that work doesn't involve watching sports, what happens? People don't agree or don't believe it, so it's just ignored?
|
|