RSS Feeds
Facebook
GRS Twitter
To build wealth — or to get out of debt — you must create a positive cash flow. That is, you must spend less than you earn. One way to do this is to cut costs. Another is to increase your income.
Because it has worked so well in my own life, I encourage people to boost their income whenever possible: ask for a raise, make money from hobbies, change careers. For many, the most sensible way to increase income is to find a second job. Even a low-paying part-time job can make a significant difference to your budget.
But in a battered economy, in a nation where unemployment is rising, what are the ethical implications of taking a second job if you don’t really need the money? That’s the dilemma facing Nancy in New Jersey. She writes:
I have a full-time job, investments, housing and health that are as secure as one’s can be now. I used to have a part-time job that recently dried up. I mentioned to a friend (half kidding) that we should go together to apply for part-time jobs at local businesses. She became very angry and said, “Why do you people do that? Why do you take jobs away from people who really need them?” As someone who is still fortunate to be employed, is it morally or ethically wrong for me to look for additional work and income?
I’ve talked with several people who have lost their jobs recently. I’ve spoken with several others who are afraid that they too may soon be out of work. In a situation like this, is it fair for a fully-employed person to apply for a second job just for extra income? Why or why not?
Addendum: Interesting. Based on a couple of past discussions here at GRS, I didn’t expect the response to be so overwhelmingly in favor of working a second job. We’ve had conversations here before in which people have expressed concern about this taking work from others who might need it. I’ve seen similar arguments in the media, too, so know it’s a worry some people have. I thought his question would spur vigorous debate instead of generating unanimous support!
This article is about Ask the Readers, Career, Odds and Ends Tuesday, 10th February 2009 (by J.D. Roth)
February 10th, 2009 at 5:07 am
To that person I would laugh. This is a dog-eat-dog world and those same people she’s trying to protect will gladly stab her in the back to get her job.
Plus many of the people that are laid off aren’t going to take part-time jobs. Why would I go make $8/hour for 15 hours a week when unemployment is paying more?
Your friend’s heart is in the right place, but she’s got this all wrong.
February 10th, 2009 at 5:09 am
This is a tough one because the last thing you want to do is make it tougher for the people that are struggling financially to get back on their feet.
But my feeling is that, if you feel like you need the job, go out there and get it. If you’re chosen over someone else, then it’s probably because the employer thinks it will be better off with you.
That’s life.
Besides, I never understood the whole argument of “taking jobs away from other people” that’s often used in the immigration debate.
It’s nobody’s job until it’s given, and then whoever gets it owns it. No one is the “default” person for a job so it can’t be “taken away.”
Just my take but I’m curious what other people think. It’s a touchy subject, especially right now…
February 10th, 2009 at 5:12 am
Absolutely its fair. You have to look out for your family first.
It’s silly to think that you’re “taking a job away from someone else” Until someone is hired, it’s no one’s job!
Further, unemployment pays alot more than a 10 hour a week job, so you’re not going to take a job away from anyone who got hit by the downturn.
February 10th, 2009 at 5:14 am
I am working for myself but still doing work for the man.
That money I get from the man pays for my handyman to maintain my investment property and make sure things are working for my tenant.
I hire one person, house another and pay a mortgage on time.
This is a good thing.
February 10th, 2009 at 5:18 am
You going to worry about other people while your own financial security is at question? Not to sound ignorant but honestly your financial situation should come first. Sometimes by working a second job and being extremely good at managing your finances you could put yourself ahead of the game by saving enough money to retire earlier. If you can find work in a recession then by all means do so.
February 10th, 2009 at 5:20 am
There should be no shame in taking a second job. And if you do have shame, my suggestion would be to self-employ and create your income through filling a societal need or providing something that helps people (i.e. create a blog about personal finance, like J.D. and me, that hopefully helps people improve their financial situation).
February 10th, 2009 at 5:23 am
The “take jobs away from X” meme is a myth- whether we’re applying it to immigrants “taking jobs” from Americans or the already-employed “taking jobs” from the unemployed. The employer will hire the best-qualified candidate for the rate the employer is willing to pay. No one “deserves” a job by virtue of their citizenship or their economic status. What makes one “deserve” a job is their qualifications and their willingness to accept the offered wage.
February 10th, 2009 at 5:25 am
This is a touchy subject, however I don’t feel it’s morally or ethically wrong. In this case the individual had a part-time job and the income it provided contributed to the financial stability of the individual. That loss has forced them to make adjustments, so why not replace that income?
As someone mentioned above a part-time job likely pays less than unemployment so it probably isn’t the job that a recently laid off individual will be looking for.
February 10th, 2009 at 5:31 am
I don’t think it is unethical. Like someone else has stated, most people who are laid off will not be looking for a part-time job when they are receiving unemployment. Also, a business usually hires the most qualified person for a job, if that person already has a job so be it.
February 10th, 2009 at 5:33 am
This is a free market, you aren’t taking away an opportunity for someone else, you are making an opportunity for yourself. I am not trying to be heartless, but you are essentially hedging yourself against the downturn in the economy, I don’t see any ethical issues with seeking other employment.
February 10th, 2009 at 5:33 am
This is a ridiculous argument. The extra money earned also goes back nto the economy through spending, which in turn creates or maintains jobs. There is no “taking someone’s job”. As if the number of jobs is an inelastic or finite number. As the poster above explained, the argument does not work in the immigration debate either, except to stir emotions and inflame the debate.
A healthy economy depends upon producers (rich labor source) and consumers people with “extra” cash. The most qualified/experienced/ person for the job should get it, becuase with limited options for hiring, a good fit from the employers standpoint can end up costing the business more.
What if the person lost their full time job, or lost a significant amount of financial security in investments? Why have al your eggs in one basket? The reason so many people suffer financial meltdown is becuase they are not diversfied enough in their income. Having a disposable source of income is good for the economy.
Once again, the state of the economy, lack of jobs specifically, has nothing to do with the number of players. We have a sharply unhealthy economy right now and the more money can traverse through the system, the better. Disposable income is one way to achieve that.
February 10th, 2009 at 5:35 am
I don’t think it’s wrong to look for additional work or income. If you choose not to apply for a job, that doesn’t mean that someone you think is *deserving* will then get the job. Besides life is too short to live it by other people’s morals - use your own values and principals to decide what to do.
In a capitalist economy it just doesn’t normally work that people who need the money get the job, it’s people who can do the job who get it. An employer might choose in favour of the person without an existing job anyway.
February 10th, 2009 at 5:40 am
Ever since I was made redundant in 2006 from a job I had held for 5 years I have only managed to find temporary work and a brief period of permanent employment again, so there are periods of unemployment that I have to go through.
I would never begrudge someone who is already in a permanent job from taking an additional job to boost their income.
It is a dog eat dog world out there, I do have moral standards, however they only extend to not doing physical or pyschological harm to another human being.
If I had the opportunity to do a second job whilst employed at another, then yes I would grab the bull by the horns and take that job if I were offered it.
What if you suddenly lost your primary job? At least with your second job you still have an income coming in even though it is reduced.
In this current climate you have to have several income streams incase one suddenly dries up.
Nancy in New Jersey I wouldn’t worry about what others think, just go for it.
February 10th, 2009 at 5:42 am
I don’t think it’s unethical at all. If the employer would give you the job, simply because you’re more qualified, there’s nothing wrong with that especially if it helps you to be in a better position financially. Not to mention that it will be better for the business to have a more qualified employee.
I think it’s good that other people are looking out for those looking for jobs, but there are better ways to help them.
February 10th, 2009 at 5:44 am
“is it fair for a fully-employed person to apply for a second job just for extra income?”
That question has got to be a joke, right?
February 10th, 2009 at 5:44 am
The idea of “sharing” the jobs is very socialist. Does that person give part of her salary to people who don’t make as much to help even things out?
February 10th, 2009 at 5:44 am
Good question to consider.
The problem with this logic is you can use it regardless of what the economy is currently doing. Unemployment will never be at 0%, so if you have a 2nd job, you will always be taking a job from someone else.
I have more than one pair of shoes in my closet. Does that mean I’m being unfair to someone who only has one pair?
Seems a little over-the-top to me…
February 10th, 2009 at 5:45 am
Nancy’s friend seems to believe that people are *entitled* to a job. The only thing you are entitled to is to use your time that you are alive in the manner in which you choose and are able. If you can and choose to take a second job then go for it.
Nancy is entitled to a better friend. (HAH!)
With social security, welfare, unemployment, housing bailouts, etc., etc. I’m not all that surprised people believe they are entitled to pretty much anything these days.
February 10th, 2009 at 5:45 am
Phew!
I was worried people would actually believe this was unethical…
February 10th, 2009 at 5:45 am
I happen to have no moral qualms about the second job. In this economy, just because you have a great full time job today, doesn’t mean that you will tomorrow. In fact, it may be the more responsible choice to work the second job and save the money away/pay higher taxes on it because you’ll bump yourself into a higher bracket. In this way, if you lose your job, you will need less government/community assistance and you will be contributing more to the government tax revenue while you do earn that money.
Also, I would wonder how that person would think about a spouse getting a part time or full time job when the other spouse “makes enough”. What does it mean to make enough?
The person’s point only makes sense if there is a strictly finite number of jobs and if everyone is equally qualified and equally willing to take any one of those jobs. I don’t think any of that is true. Emotionally, I sort of get it, but still not really.
February 10th, 2009 at 5:52 am
Newsflash: LIFE IS NOT FAIR. I’m so tired of hearing these socialist attitudes. Who is to say your job would have been filled by some struggling person who otherwise would have no income? You can’t know these things, all you can do is work to better your situation.
@Greg–tell American construction workers that the “take jobs away from X meme” is a myth. My dad has been in construction for over 20 years, and he has seen American workers leave because they couldn’t afford to underbid illegal workers, who most of the time send the money back home. Someone DOES deserve a job based on citizenship over someone who is in this country illegally, if for no other reason than that it is illegal to work in this country without obtaining a work visa or becoming a citizen.
February 10th, 2009 at 5:55 am
I agree with plonkee’s point that it is up to an employer to make that discrimination on whether an applicant with another job or one without another job is a better fit. I mean, the one without might be a better fit because the manager is biased towards helping the downtrodden or it could simply be the case that the unemployed will likely have better availability and potential to be promoted to a full-time position.
I agree with everyone also who says it is stupid to not apply for a job because someone else ‘deserves’ it more. That is not a judgement call for you to make and you are not ‘taking away their job’ because if they want it, they too can apply and if they are better than you then they will get it.
I do have to split with the group consensus on one aspect though. It has been said “Besides, I never understood the whole argument of “taking jobs away from other people” that’s often used in the immigration debate.”
While I think the quoted term used of ‘taking jobs away’ is a bit of a misnomer, in the immigration debate there is a complex issue that is not existing in this moral question. That is the fact that illegal immigrants are willing to work for wages below the legal minimum wage partially because they do not pay taxes on these wages. As a result, a legal resident of the country who wanted the job could not compete with the price point offered by the immigrant because the legal resident’s employment needs to be official and of the legal rate. Whether minimum wage laws should exist and whether they should be circumvented by businesses hiring illegal immigrants is a discussion for another post.
February 10th, 2009 at 5:55 am
Here is the problem with our present situation, there is more than enough work to be done, be it the very large, building a bridge, to the very small, installing a sprinkler system. What is missing from the equation now is simple, there isn’t enough money, actual liquid capital in the hands of those that need the work. I can definitely understand the needs of those who have money owing and want to get back to a cash positive situation (or at least break even). If what you need however isn’t just cash (money for a luxury like a massage, or work done on your house) I would seriously suggest working on a barter level, finding and creating tit for tat work that takes advantage of your other skills. The benefits of this sort of work are multiple, increased activity, increased social bonds and an increased sense of well-being. The obvious downside for industrious people will be occasionally getting taken advantage of, but when it works it is an incredible wonderful system. Don’t think that every solution requires printed money!
February 10th, 2009 at 5:57 am
The one thing that I question is the most qualified for the job idea. For many jobs I don’t think there is necessarily a clear most qualified candidate. The hiring person never has all the relevant information on all the candidates. Being most qualified is fairly subjective in many hiring situations.
Is there a point, 25% unemployment rate, where the ethics change?
February 10th, 2009 at 6:00 am
No definitely not! That is ridiculous! This is capitalism so go out there and make some money!
February 10th, 2009 at 6:00 am
“Fully-employed” is 40 hours? Not in my world.
February 10th, 2009 at 6:01 am
@AD: Then the job does not belong to the American worker. If the employer places the price of the bid above all else, and the bid from the American worker is always going to be higher than the immigrant, then the job will always go to the immigrant. Nothing is going to change that unless the government starts going after the people who employ illegals over American candidates.
But, that doesn’t mean the job “belongs” to American workers. In fact, it’s quite possible that the employer themselves will have bid for a contract using figures that would be impossible to achieve without illegals. If American workers were necessary, the contract might not exist in the first place. So, the job cannot “belong” to an American. It’s a sad truth, but as you said, life is not fair.
That’s my take on the situation as well. Caring about others is not “socialist”, whatever you seem to think. But, if it is necessary to take a second job to feed your family, even if that means making it more difficult for others to work, then so be it.
February 10th, 2009 at 6:03 am
It’s not their job you’re taking until they get it. If you get it and they didn’t it’s because they either didn’t apply are weren’t as good a fit for the job.
Just leaving a job sitting there untaken until someone more deserving gets it is never going to work… by that logic there would always be someone more deserving, more needy than the person who got it and employers would have no employees as we wait for the most pathetic person to walk in for it.
I want the person who wants the job. The number one symptom of wanting the job is applying.
February 10th, 2009 at 6:11 am
It’s not unethical or immoral. As has been said, the number of jobs isn’t finite or inelastic.
Let’s assume Nancy has it all together. In fact, let’s assume she’s passed the “crossover point” so that she’s actually earning enough from her investments to maintain her lifestyle for as long as she wishes. That doesn’t mean she needs to quit work altogether and just volunteer her time. Just the opposite. Even if she does nothing with the “extra” money except invest it, that act of investing is, ultimately, helping to keep jobs or create new ones.
Let’s now assume that Nancy is not in a position that she can live off her investments (she hasn’t yet reached the crossover point). Then how can anyone say that she doesn’t need a job or two?
As has been pointed out, her spending from her “extra” money from this job is working its way through the economy, and that’s a good thing. If she stops that job, she spends less on little extravagances, or she invests less. Cutting spending and not investing is not going to help the economy.
Ultimately, I don’t think that people who have lost their jobs in this economic downturn are going to settle for part-time, lower wage work. The proof of that is in the fact that there are part-time jobs available for Nancy to look for with or without her friend.
February 10th, 2009 at 6:16 am
We ran into this a while back. My husband took an evening bartending job a year or so ago to keep his hand in, while also having his professional job. He suggested an unemployed acquaintance interview too. Ultimately my spouse got and took the job.
Husband was later laid off from his primary job and the bartending was paying for his petrol/cigarettes/fun. We were fine regardless, I earn enough to support us, but it’s always good to have two paycheques. Be careful that your “ethics” don’t eat you alive.
February 10th, 2009 at 6:20 am
I’m surprised this is even an issue. My family’s well being is the most important thing I need to worry about. We finally woke up back in June and began a change in lifestyle, hitting the Debt snowball, etc. Then when the economy really went down hill in September, we concentrated more on Saving cash. While discouraging that the snowball had to be stopped, does this mean I’m ‘entitled’ to some protection because the economy upset my plans? Nope.
Does this mean that I should stop looking for ways to help my family get out of debt? Heck no! I’ll craigslist things, garage sale them, whatever. I’m making my preparations in case my Company (already in Chapter 11) goes under.
This include either me getting a second job, or my wife re-entering the workforce. It will be tougher to find a job, as the rules of Supply and Demand are in force. But should I sit back and wait for a Bail out? (Maybe if I change my name to include the word ‘Bank’).
Do what you can legally to increase the chances of you and your family surviving the next year.
Speaking of Legally, the illegal immigration issue and taking jobs away is rather a moot point. Until the illegals (ie. not Legally here) are sent home, this won’t be resolved. If the legality were enforced, then there would be more jobs for Americans. Supply and Demand would then take over here. Supply (US Workers) would either accept lower wages, or the Demand (US Work) would have to cover their costs by raising their prices.
Sorry if I ranted, but this entitlement thing has really gotten to me…
February 10th, 2009 at 6:22 am
I’m always alarmed by the static number of jobs argument. The reality is that the more jobs that are worked, the more will be created. The value of working for the society is not the paycheck earned, but the work done. Individuals have disparate training, ability and ethic, and utilizing the best person will create the greatest wealth for us all, even in these pensive times.
February 10th, 2009 at 6:26 am
I agree with the general sentiment here, there is nothing wrong with having a second job, especially in this economy.
There is no such thing as entitlement to a job, it should be given to the best qualified person, period. As to illegal immigrants underbidding others, I agree that there should be more scrutiny, but I also have to say that some jobs aren’t worth the wage that regular works would demand. For example, cleaning jobs are usually done by immigrants because they offer relatively good work for a cheap price. On the flip side, if those services would cost more, less people would use them, it’s a discretionary job, it’s only filled if it’s cheap enough. As such, the impact here is really minimal.
February 10th, 2009 at 6:33 am
I am joining the list of unanimous agreement. Who defines whether you ‘need’ a job. Just because you are using that extra income to pay off debt instead of put food on the table does not mean that you don’t ‘need’ the job. Many people define ‘needs’ to include financial security or freedom from debt, and by taking that second job they may be protecting themselves from a truly dire situation later on by increasing their own security.
February 10th, 2009 at 6:35 am
I think taking a second job is one of these weird situations in which it’s a good thing for the individual, but it could hurt others looking for work.
The first comparison that came to my mind is this “debate” about people saving more. (”Debate” is in quotes because I feel like there’s a certain amount of astroturfing from the “don’t save” side.) Each person should be saving more and spending less, but when everybody does it leads to a drop in spending overall, which isn’t helping the economy to recover.
I see the “spend, don’t save” side of the argument, but I’m not going to do something stupid because it “helps” in this nebulous, no-way-to-tell sort of way. I remember reading the response an economist gave to this question of “spend or save”, and he said, “I’m going to save, and hope everyone else spends.” You have to take care of yourself first, then you can worry about “The Ecomony As A Whole”.
It’s the same with a second job. I’m thinking about starting a little side business doing IT work. If I do that, will I take away someone else’s possible income? Probably, but I’m going to try to make more money, and let others contribute to the job market.
February 10th, 2009 at 6:37 am
I would say…evaluate your motives.
Are you getting a 2nd job to pay for frivolous wants, or to meet necessary needs?
Examine your own conscience and respond accordingly. There is no blanket answer to this question. The answer will always depend on personal circumstances.
DebtFREEk!
February 10th, 2009 at 6:38 am
Any job should be done by the person that does it best. If you happen to be employed, yet are interested in taking a part-time job on the side and can do it better than others, then you deserve the job. It is morally wrong to force people who are supposedly “fortunate” to not do work that “less fortunate” people should be “allowed” to do.
February 10th, 2009 at 6:40 am
On the one hand, I can see how people with a good job and investments and all shouldn’t be taking extra jobs just for extra income.
But if one didn’t have a good enough job to pay the bills and have food, shelter, etc, then it would be morally and ethically wrong to not allow that person to seek a second job, if needed.
Also, if people haven’t taken the time to apply for the job in question, why not take it? I get so pissed when my friends’ roommate complains about how poor he is, but he refuses to get a job and spends all of his money on gaming equipment instead of cleaning up and getting new clothes so he looks halfway decent for an interview. If some rich guy took an extra part time job that this guy could have taken, I’d be fine with it since the poor roommate didn’t care enough to take it seriously.
February 10th, 2009 at 6:43 am
i am totally with debtfreek on this one.
February 10th, 2009 at 6:45 am
It’s got nothing to do with fairness. The ‘fair’ part is that everyone can apply for the job. Everyone’s got a fair shot at that.
The notion that fair means equal is a silly and naive one. Is it fair to make a business hire someone who is unemployed but less capable than another who wants a second job?
Fair means simply we each have an equal chance. After that it’s the survival of the fittest.
February 10th, 2009 at 6:46 am
I think this really depends on the situation and the part-time job.
I’m a librarian living in an area with a library school. I’m fortunate that there are a lot of colleges in the area, but, there are still only so many jobs. Relocating is not currently an option for me.
I spent months looking for jobs close to what I wanted to do. I was advised to “volunteer” and to “try to get a college to take you as a substitute librarian.”
I watched retiring librarians or librarians who wanted to make some extra money take the part time jobs that would have been the best way to break into the field. The schools keep saying that the library field is greying and they need new librarians, but, none of them can afford to retire. When they finally go, it will be a gush. But many of us will have left the field because there was no room for us.
People will take part time or grunt work jobs if that’s all they can get. They’ll try to work two or three of them if they have to to make things balance out. Unemployment runs out. When it does, you’re going to do what you have to do to make ends meet.
I graduated in 2006 — I’ve spent three years sandwiching part-time & temporary work together in my field. And if I weren’t married? My only option would be to move, but, I don’t know that I could afford to do it.
February 10th, 2009 at 6:56 am
J.D. those comments the woman made to Nancy smack of entitlement. Like somehow, the people that are out of work are entitled to those jobs. One of the reasons that this country is in the current financial predicament is entitlement. There are many in this country that feel they are entitled to the American dream. They are not willing to go the extra mile, and it is always someone else’s fault when things do not go their way. I for one am tired of it. If you have the where-with-all to take a second job, then kudos to you.
Keep up the good work.
February 10th, 2009 at 6:56 am
Since when is wrong for me to better my self by having two jobs? This makes no scenes to me. It sounds bad to say but i needed financial help from a stranger do you they would hand over? So why should I miss on money to be made for them? The world is not a perfect place and not everything works out in the end like a movie. So Im going to do what i need in the mean time to keep afloat. If someone gets layed off I am truly sorry, but im not going to hurt my circumstance for you.
February 10th, 2009 at 7:00 am
I see absolutely no moral dilemma.
Get as many jobs as you are willing to work!
February 10th, 2009 at 7:00 am
@DebtFreek:
Would you say it is unethical to get a 2nd job if it is to pay for frivolous wants? Just curious….
The reason I ask is while I don’t agree with or condone frivilous spending in any type of economy, I would still consider it a personal choice — far from unethical….irresponsible at best!
~~~~~
Personally, I’ve never considered it unethical at all. As so many have already mentioned, it is a capitalist society.
To think that we are somehow “helping” the unemployed or balancing the playing field by not taking that second job — I think we’re fooling ourselves.
I’ve been on both sides of the fence (unemployed and held 2nd job) and while unemployed I never felt resent for those who were working multiple jobs.
Unless you’re “under-cutting” your unemployed friend to get that part time job then I believe your conscience should be clear
February 10th, 2009 at 7:01 am
As long as the fully employed person isn’t low balling the wage, there isn’t anything wrong with it. Wouldn’t you want to have the most qualified person you can get for the part time job versus the guy that needs it? The response of the Woman’s friend sounds like it’s right out of “Atlas Shrugged”. One of the underpinnings of a market economy is the phrase “willing and able”. If you are willing and able to take a second job, then go for it. If you get hired over someone that isn’t fully employed IT’S NOT YOUR FAULT and you shouldn’t feel guilty for it.
February 10th, 2009 at 7:10 am
I guess I’m of the mindset: there but for the grace of God go I…. I have a secure job and great benefits but I’m paying down debt as well, so a second job would be great. But I know there are people out there who could use what I’d see as “extra income” as “only income” so I’ve avoided getting another job.
The caveat is unless it’s something specialized with what I and only a few others can do. For example, last semester I taught in my field. Your average joe blow can’t do that so I didn’t feel like I was taking food out of anyone else’s mouth.
But I’m a die hard liberal…I suspect a lot of your readers (obviously) aren’t.
February 10th, 2009 at 7:12 am
Work all you can, at whatever endeavors most satisfy and enrich you, at however many jobs as you can competently and productively apply yourself, as long as you’re not robbing yourself of health and rest and your family of your presence and love.
February 10th, 2009 at 7:12 am
My sig. other and I each have full time jobs. They pay quite nicely, so we don’t both have to work if we don’t want to.
Which one of us is the unethical one for “stealing” some poor, laid-off software engineer’s job?
It’s kind of illogical to think that someone who needs a job will find a part time job you don’t take.
(hint: neither)
February 10th, 2009 at 7:19 am
I don’t understand this “logic” at all. You take whatever job you can get. No one is “owed” a job. Plus, I don’t think the reason for taking that job matters. My mother says that it’s unethical for me not to spend every penny I make because I should buy stuff to keep other people employed. So, there you go. Extra money means more money for you to circulate, which means a little extra boost for the economy. Do what works for you and don’t worry about the rest. As long as you’re taking care of yourself and your family and doing good work, you’re contributing plenty to society. I hope that eases your conscience.
February 10th, 2009 at 7:25 am
It is not unethical — each of us has responsibilities and must fulfill them. But it is kind and morally responsible to help others find work. In that vein, I will tell you that in our part of the country the census bureau is having a very difficult time finding people to fill positions, full and part-time, for the upcoming census, and that this might be a good place to steer your friend to.
February 10th, 2009 at 7:29 am
Just an observation - When times get tough people get more defensive about THEIR situation (i.e. the dog-eat-dog comment). Were one to ask this question two years ago the comments might be different, but today the reality is that no one’s job is secure and we, as a society, are willing to be understanding with someone’s stingyness.
With that said, I completely agree that just because someone else may “deserve” or be in need of a job more doesn’t mean you shouldn’t apply. But it does mean that if the employer opts to give it to the more “deserving” candidate you can’t really complain. . . too much.
In the posting scenario of your friend getting upset, I would wonder (and worry) that they felt that their job was in jeopardy and that they didn’t feel that they were competitive in today’s market. I think your friend may be lashing out because of fear for her own situation.
February 10th, 2009 at 7:29 am
I’ll be the devil’s advocate for a second.
It seems like most people are saying that it is not unethical to get that second job.
I would pose the question to these people then: Is it ethical for the bank CEOs on wall street to make millions of dollars a year?
It seems like you can’t have it both ways. For an unemployed person it seems like you are taking more than you need if you take on a second job. This is the same argument that “Main street” makes against “Wall street”. At the end of the day though budgets and spending are all relative.
A few specifics:
Getting out of debt as justification — This doesn’t really affect the ethical question of the situation. A few of the Wall street workers are in debt as well. The action doesn’t become more ethical just because you are in debt.
Nobody is entitled to a job — Disagree. This is why social programs exist. People should be able to work to support their family within their skill range. I would bet a fair number of jobs that GRS readers have could be shipped overseas with ease, but that doesn’t happen largely on the principle that in America you are somewhat entitled to a method of supporting your family.
If you are moving way out of your skill range just to make a few extra bucks, then you are denying someone who may be qualified for the job and you will probably get it because you are vastly overqualified.
Ok. End rant. Sorry for the long comment. I’ve definitely had a second job before and it is very helpful on the budget, but very few of the justifications listed in previous comments speak to the ETHICS of getting a second job.
-Nick
February 10th, 2009 at 7:31 am
I am sorry but your friend is not the wisest in complaining that we “people” take the jobs from those who need it.
Why doesn’t she get off her ass and do something and stop whining.
And no it is not unethical, it’s not really a proper word for this post. It is more like people should decide between having a second job or part time business as either a way to make more money or to actually provide value to yourself and the people around you.
What is the point of busting your ass, just to pay the bills? You are just working to survive, what about living, when will that come?
February 10th, 2009 at 7:36 am
This question makes me think that we are headed back to a place where the harder you work, the better off you are. It hasn’t been that way for many many years.
Those who are willing to work three part times jobs AND still search for a good full time job will do okay. Those who are sitting back saying ‘I HAVE to make 30k/yr salary, and won’t take anything less’ and are not willing to take other work have no one but themselves to blame.
Are you out of work? Go work at McDonalds until you find something better. There is no excuse in my opinion for the mindset of waiting for work that is ‘worthy’ of you. Work is work. Do something.
Am I being too harsh? Many people say I am. But you get out of this life what you put in to it. I’m a big believer in working for what you get, so go out there and take whatever work you have to in order to make your life abundant.
February 10th, 2009 at 7:39 am
First, there seems to be some confusion on how exactly unemployment works. It IS possible for someone who is currently receiving unemployment to work part time in order to bring in more money (at least in Pennsylvania; I can’t comment on other states’ systems). Here’s the short version of how unemployment works:
After being downsized in November, I applied for unemployment. After submitting all my paperwork, the unemployment office calculate that, based on my wages over the previous year, I was entitled to receive about $400 each week (under half of my previous wages).
On top of that, I’ve got a ‘part-time work allowance’, of about $150 each week. If I work part-time and make less than that amount, I’ll still receive the full amount of unemployment. I’m currently making $120 each week, and receive the full amount of my unemployment.
If I make MORE than $150 but LESS than the $550 in total weekly payment, my unemployment will be cut down to bring my total compensation for the week down to that level. The difference between the full unemployment benefit and what I actually receive will be credited, and the length of time I can receive unemployment will be extended. If I started making $350 a week part-time, then my unemployment benefits will go down to $200 a week, but will last twice as long.
If I make MORE than $550 a week while still working part time, I’ll stop receiving unemployment benefits, but again, the benefits will roll over, so if I start making less money before finding a full-time job, the benefits will start to pick up again. (I believe after two years or so, I’ll be removed from the system, even if I still have some unemployment benefits remaining due to roll-overs.)
The advantage of this system is that there’s little, if any, disincentive towards working. Any level of work will generate more income than relying on unemployment alone, so people can find part time work without worrying that a $7 an hour, twenty hour a week job at McDonald’s will destroy their ability to get unemployment and drop their income.
There’s the two-minute version of the (Pennsylvania) unemployment system. Hopefully, this’ll end the comments about people who are receiving unemployment not wanting to work for risk of using benefits.
Second, in the short term, job creation IS fairly inelastic. (Doubly so in recessionary conditions, as we’re currently experiencing.) While it might not be appropriate to talk about ‘taking’ a job from someone else (as has been mentioned, it’s not ‘your job’ until you’re actually holding it), adding one more person seeking a particular job will resulting in one more person who doesn’t get that job.
That said, I agree with most of those who’ve already posted: it’s no more unethical to seek another job than it is hold onto your current job. In both cases, someone else could be working that job instead of you. This fact shouldn’t stop you from working any job you are able to get; there will always be other people who want the same jobs as you, but you have to help yourself first.
February 10th, 2009 at 7:39 am
It seems what your friend is overlooking is that if she is considering a second job then she does NEED the job. There are different levels of needs.
If an individual is trying to find ways to make ends meet or maintain a certain lifestyle, he or she can justify the “need” for a second job.
There are hundreds of opportunities out there to learn a trade, go back to school, or start your own company. I don’t sit around and feel bad for myself if someone were to get a job over me. Chances are that individual is more qualified and it indicates there are measures I can take to make myself a better candidate in the future.
Don’t feel bad for people. You can lead a horse to water but can’t make it drink. Show people where these jobs exist, but if they don’t want to make the effort then you have every right to pick up a second job.
February 10th, 2009 at 7:40 am
Up until recently, I’ve been looking for another job just because I feel I need to move on from what I’m doing now. With all the joblessness, I have slacked off, mainly because I feel very grateful for having a job at all.
This is my choice though and I wouldn’t expect anyone else to feel the same way. Now my boyfriend has been laid-off and I may be looking for a second job, not a better first one.
The argument really is pretty silly. You could also say you are making someone lose their job because you won’t buy a new car or you are growing your own food. Ultimately, it’s your life and you have to do what’s right for you. You’d go nuts trying to analyze the effects of all the moves you make in life.
February 10th, 2009 at 7:41 am
I agree with the majority here. Do what you have to, even if you’re just stowing the money into your emergency fund. Many of those people her friend is referring to would probably have benefitted from having second job and builting multiple income streams.
I admire Nancy for looking for a job to make extra money. I know someone who is always complaining about their $10 an hour job not being enough money, but they refuse to get more education, another job or do anything proactive to increase their income stream. Nancy is probably in the position she is in (being financially secure) because she has worked extra jobs in the past and spent the money wisely.
February 10th, 2009 at 7:44 am
Let’s take this to an extreme: is it ethical for a married couple to have two incomes instead of one? It seems like the same shaky logic applies.
And as far as the bank CEOs making millions? Unfortunately, if the market is willing to pay them that much, so be it. If I wanted to bust my butt to make those millions, I could try to be a bank CEO too. But to me, the trade off in stress isn’t worth it to me, so I won’t. I’m fortunate enough to still have a very good job. If others resent the fact that I’m “rich” (and some have actually said this to my face), they can go through the 8 years of specialized schooling and many years of on the job training to make the money I do. Funny, though, I find few takers because they complain it’s too much work.
February 10th, 2009 at 7:47 am
I’m going to play devil’s advocate and say it’s wrong. If you’re already financially well-off, then how much more money and “stuff” do you need?
Or at least that was my gut reaction. Employers don’t get to look at motivations (”I need to feed my family” versus “I want that big screen TV”).
We also don’t know whom we are applying against. Am I applying for a job against people who need or more, or people who need it less than I do? I don’t get to know. Should that stop my from trying?
I think if we are financially able, we should find a way to give back to our community (through time or donations). Perhaps that’s a more reliable way to make a difference in the lives of those who are struggling than to not apply for a job that they may or may not be eligible for in the first place.
February 10th, 2009 at 7:49 am
I wonder if Nancy’s friend has a problem with small businesses (or any businesses) in her area earning a profit?
After all, to earn a profit is to charge for a good or service more than it cost the one selling it, and in these hard economic times everyone needs every dollar they have. So wouldn’t earning a profit, or trying to earn a profit, be stealing money right from the hands of customers?
Of course not! Nancy should be allowed to profit from the hours she’s willing to work. Period.
February 10th, 2009 at 7:50 am
America is the land of the free, not land of the fair. Why do people continue to mix this up? You have the freedom to go out and find work, just like the next person. If you’re not getting hired, you need to figure out why that is, not blame someone that has two jobs for taking yours. In a free society you have to work for what you get. No handouts. I would say the idea that everyone deserves a job is the “ethically” wrong thought.
February 10th, 2009 at 7:53 am
The more pertinent question is whether acquiring a second job is a good idea. Is it a good idea for my family? For my community? For my country? Do my actions, completely ethical though they may be, do more harm than good? Am I being the kind of neighbor I want to have? Am I being a good role model for my kids? Do my short term actions cost me more in the long run?
Ethics aren’t situational but the answers to these questions will be different for every person and every situation. I think we can stipulate that there is nothing unethical in working as hard as we can, but sometimes, not always, it isn’t a good idea.
February 10th, 2009 at 7:56 am
if you need the money, and you have the time to take on a second job, why not?
some friends of mine all work full time in fast food (we’re all students) and two of them work a paper route. they have the time to do it, they’re awake when it needs to be delivered, and they enjoy being out walking.
February 10th, 2009 at 8:05 am
I believe it is right. If you are qualified to do the jobs then take as many as you want. Now, your health and social life may suffer, but that is your choice.
What’s the difference here if you and your spouse could live off one income instead of two, and you choose to live off two? Is that wrong? Shouldn’t one of you q.
February 10th, 2009 at 8:06 am
I would be a bit sceptical of a taking a second job, but only as far as it would affects my primary job.
I do not think I would ever try to take on a second job, as it would leave less able to do my primary job.
February 10th, 2009 at 8:06 am
I believe it is right. If you are qualified to do the jobs then take as many as you want. Now, your health and social life may suffer, but that is your choice.
What’s the difference here if you and your spouse could live off one income instead of two, and you choose to live off two? Is that wrong? Shouldn’t one of you quit your job? Of course not.
February 10th, 2009 at 8:07 am
I have never posted until today, I am more of a reader that a writer I guess but this topic demanded a response.
I took a part-time job after 8 years of working only one job and I did this to reduce my debt and get out of it this year.
How is it wrong to do this? Is that not the aim, to be financially free? Nothing is taken form anyone and I completely agree with the notion that were written previously that it is a competitive job market and it is every man/woman for themselves.
I am an immigrant and did you know that to get a work permit; you employer has to prove that you are equally if not more qualified than American counterparts and that a citizen is not deprived of the job, so it is already done.
February 10th, 2009 at 8:10 am
I work a second job.
At my second job, there where a number of redundancy’s.
Because I ‘wanted to be there’ earning extra money rather than ‘having to be there’ to get by, I was saved from the chop because I was willing to work hard.
I was the only one who didn’t care if I did get fired, because the extra money is nice but not essential.
No one knows who would’ve had the job to start with, and tbh, I don’t care. What I do care about, is doing a good enough job, to retain my nice little side earner throughout this rather uncertain period.
February 10th, 2009 at 8:11 am
comment #16 asks: “Does that person give part of her salary to people who don’t make as much to help even things out?” and the answer is, “yes, in the US we all do — our taxes (especially our social security taxes) do go to help others. And I’m in favor of that. The “dog eat dog” comments on this thread are sad (for one thing, it made me wonder, do dogs eat each other when times are bad?). I don’t think we will get out of this economic situation by pursuing a single-minded “what’s in it for me” philosophy. We should all realize how much we have to depend on each other, that social capital is as important as money.
February 10th, 2009 at 8:14 am
If it is legal and it is the best for her situation then it is ethical. In a tight job market a second job might make her less effective at her first job (making the second job BAD), or she might be downsized and only have her second job left (making the second job GOOD).
If having the second job is morally and ethically wrong, would losing her first job and having that second job to keep her off unemployment and living off other people’s money suddenly make it right?
*Enough* is a very elastic concept. She said she’s making the bills just fine, but if she lived in a bigger house and spent irresponsibly then she probably wouldn’t be. If this were the case, would behaving in that financially irresponsible fashion justify her ethically to get that second job? If it were ethically wrong to get a second job and make more money, is it ethically wrong for people within her company to get raises so her employer can’t hire more people? Is it ethically wrong to consume more so her needs are higher?
How about the ethics of a single person taking a job over a person supporting kids? Married people (with a working spouse) over single people? Teenagers or young adults who can live with their parents over older people supporting a household? How about compelling older people to retire to make room for younger people?
I think snipping about the ethics of taking/giving a job to one person over another based on anything but the assessment of the best person for the job is not the point. We should all instead be looking at what it would take to change the economic situation. Whether you believe in lower corporate taxes or higher government spending: THAT is where, I think, we should be focusing our energy. Let’s not decide which of us gets the last crust of bread but focus on making more bread.
February 10th, 2009 at 8:19 am
Are you KIDDING me? None of us should work because some of us need the work more? Does the same apply to education and healthcare? Seriously, now. The employer needs the best person for the job to do the best job. If that person already has a “1st” job, it still benefits the employer and the employee, and the customers of the employer to have the best employee for the job doing the job. Having the 2nd job helps the economy. And the unemployed people have the “advantage” of not having the 1st job taking up 40 hours of applying and interviewing time. This is the biggest load I’ve ever heard, and I am flabbergasted that J.D. even posted it - though I am commenting, so it must be a good discussion topic. Good job, J.D. No, I don’t think anyone who is hardworking enough to find a second job is unethical. Unethical would be intentionally getting someone fired so you could apply for the job that you got them fired from. When I was in college, I’d always work 2 jobs during the summers. One job was to save, one job to spend. My full-time gig direct deposited into my savings, and my part-time gig was my fun money for going out and spending on food and clothes and gas, etc. Of course, that was when my parents paid most of my living expenses.
Now I am an independent contractor in my spare time, which I’ve found works great considering I’m my own boss and I still only have my boss at work and myself.
Another situation where it might be unethical to get a 2nd job is when it is prohibited as “moonlighting”.
February 10th, 2009 at 8:23 am
This is just silly. The French have this same skewed view of economics where they think it is fixed and there are only a certain number of jobs. If you take a second job, it increases your income, which will allow you to a) increase your productivity (which is good for the economy) and b) have more income to use for spending (which creates more job demand) and saving (which is necessary for investment and loan vehicles). Pure and utter nonsense.
February 10th, 2009 at 8:27 am
There is no such thing as unethical, it makes no sense in the context of having a second job. This is stupid, if you actually set up a sweatshop here then that may be questionable, well you probably go to jail.
February 10th, 2009 at 8:29 am
Taking a second look, maybe a different perspective is if you and your friend both see a job ad for a job with flexible hours, and there is only one position. You have a job. Your friend does not. You are both equally qualified, and the hours would be flexible enough for either of you. Would you apply for the job if you wanted a 2nd job, knowing your friend was applying the job while unemployed? Or would you just offer to go in and fill out the application together to see who they want more?
February 10th, 2009 at 8:33 am
it’s only unethical if there are requirements you not moonlight or you gain permission doing so first. This is mostly in the case of salaried employees, though, where you are being paid for being on call 24/7.
it would also be unethical, if you were working in competing companies where intellectual property, designs, information, etc are an issue;however, you probably wouldn’t be getting two jobs like that and you would more than likely be vetted out.
the real problem is being able to do a competent job at each job you hold. If you can do that, then you aren’t shorting anyone.
February 10th, 2009 at 8:40 am
Do you really know if your friend really wants that kind of job or even if they will be good at it?
Stop thinking for others, it is a competitive world out there.
You can mention it to them but don’t go out of your way to jeopardize your focus to please them.
February 10th, 2009 at 8:44 am
There is nothing unethical about getting a second job. Like many other commenters said, you are not actually taking the job from someone else. Yes, there are a lot of people without jobs right now, but many people might not be willing to go from a salaried position to working part time at the mall. If the mall needs people to work there, then you have every right to apply.
February 10th, 2009 at 8:46 am
Capitalism. I think that says it all.
February 10th, 2009 at 8:51 am
As a person who works a full time job, part time job and two freelance jobs I find this idea that I’m being somehow “unfair” insulting. I’ve seen this in the workplace too when we’re overstaffed and I’m the one volunteered to go home since I have other income sources. Nevermind I’m the person called in when they’re understaffed. I had to prove myself and work harder than any other employee at the part time job, can’t use my full-time job as an excuse for being tired or lazy. I have to manage my time better to accomplish everything and keep my jobs.
February 10th, 2009 at 8:51 am
I work 50+ hours a week, with a full time job and a second, night job. This is how I paid off my credit card debt (in addition to severely curtailing my spending) and I refuse to feel guilty that I’ve ‘taken’ a job from someone else.
Who took the initiative to FIND this job? I did. Who polished up her resume and sent it in? I did. Who sold herself in a phone interview? I did. Who manages to be a GREAT employee both during the day and during the night, all while going to school to improve her career prospects? I do.
If someone else had taken the initiative and done all of these things, well, more power to them. But they didn’t. I DID.
I’ve lost out on jobs that I thought I was perfect for, and rolled with it. Sometimes you just don’t catch a break. But sometimes, with hard work and perseverance, you do. I’m not a “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” kind of person. I believe in welfare, I believe in food stamps, I believe in Social Security. But if a person is going to sit around and whine about how I’M taking all the jobs, then that person would probably never have taken the initiative to find that job in the first place.
February 10th, 2009 at 8:51 am
OK, another Devil’s advocate post:
First, as someone else mentioned, working part time doesn’t kill your unemployment. Here in Oregon, you get a weekly benefit amount as well as a total benefit. If I bring in extra money, my weekly benefit is reduced by that amount, but my total benefit is not. That means my unemployment lasts longer, which in this market is a very good thing (except that even part time work is extremely difficult to find).
Second, we’re all in this together, economically speaking. Every other unemployed person also affects me and my family and costs all of us: taxes to cover increased welfare and unemployment, lost revenue for business and government because of lack of spending, lowered housing values when people foreclose, increased crime caused by hopeless and desperate people, and so on. If you can’t bring yourself to care for others on principle (love your neighbor as yourself) then you can at least care for economic reasons.
Third, several people have commented to the effect that if something is legal it MUST be ethical. I’d like to point out that this is extremely dangerous thinking. There is not necessarily any correlation between the two and considering what governments have legalized in the past and around the world today I would be very uncomfortable with taking this position.
Finally, I agree that while ethics may not be situational, the application of them sure is and each individual needs to answer this question for themselves. However, it can be argued that a “dog-eat-dog,” “every one for themselves,” “he who dies with the most toys wins,” “greed is good” mentality is what got us into this mess to begin with.
February 10th, 2009 at 8:55 am
It’s funny how Nancy[’s friend does not extend her arguement to her primary job. After all, by having that job she is depriving someone else of it.
Sillyness aside, there no reason why someone can’t hold down two jobs. There are always stories of people who hold down multiple part time jobs just to get by - should these people also be limited to a single job?
The silly reasoning would also be an argument against a paying hobby. After all why should you, the basement furniture maker, be taking business and jobs away from a formally established furniture shop?
February 10th, 2009 at 8:55 am
I am in a similar situation in that I just went back to work after a period as a stay-at-home mom when a job opened up in my field that I couldn’t resist. I’ve been feeling periodically guilty about it though because my husband makes enough to support our family in a very stable job and now I do too, so basically now we have enough to support 2 families with our incomes. I live in an area with high unemployment and have heard a lot of people talking about how they are struggling. We’re not using the money to spend more, although we do pay a nanny to watch our kids now so I guess my job helps her support her family. We have also increased charitable giving. But really most of the extra money will go into investments and paying off our mortgage early since we have no other debt. Anyway, I’ve been feeling guilty, but I will keep the job because I want to work.
February 10th, 2009 at 8:57 am
I thought this would be a different question than you asked. I used to work for someone who felt I should not have any hobbies, extra curricular activities, in essence tried to dictate/restrict what I did on my time off (to the extent of telling me in so many words not to get pregnant). That is, any time either not working or recuperating or preparing for this job was time “stolen” from her. Now I don’t agree with the lengths this particular employer took this, it is a reasonable question to ask what if an employee worked so much on non-full time job(s) it affected their performance on their full time job? Is that ethical?
February 10th, 2009 at 8:58 am
I would like to point something out here, I’m British not American, so I was commenting from my perspective in the UK.
The same is perfectly valid in the UK.
As for my dog eat dog comment, I bet the dogs would eat each other if they were starving and there was nothing else to eat.
February 10th, 2009 at 9:03 am
I, too, am joining the list of people who don’t think there’s anything wrong with taking a second job and trying to improve one’s economic situation.
I was thinking of taking a second job myself this past summer in addition to my full time job when just such an opportunity fell into my lap. After some consideration - and it was mainly how I was going to manage the scheduling part of it - I accepted it. I don’t regret it for a minute - the extra money I’ve earned has helped in many ways with savings, paying off debt, etc, and to make me feel I’m doing everything I can to help my family during these tense economic times. Of course it’s tough and exhausting at times, but I thank God I was presented with that opportunity.
Incidentally, my full time job is in the newspaper industry, which has been on very shaky ground for some time now (even before this current crisis). I certainly can’t predict what will happen overall, but I have to think about how to position myself when the time comes (and it will eventually, possibly sooner rather than later) for me to move on.
I would submit that most people, when confronted with a similar situation, are going to retrench and look out for themselves and their families first and do whatever it takes to stay afloat.
February 10th, 2009 at 9:10 am
Since I write frequently about second jobs and side businesses, I thought I should pipe up. I don’t see how working a second job could be unethical. Some people spend hours a week on skiing, postcard collecting, video games, Scout group leading, caring for their kids, caring for their elderly parents, running the PTA and so on — all on top of their day jobs. I see no difference, except that the person with the second job or side business actually gets reimbursed.
February 10th, 2009 at 9:12 am
JD, I am interested in this phenomenon too, of a large majority of the comments being that this person should not worry about others when trying to get a second part time job if she can.
I have to confess that my first instinct is to say, the heck with what everyone else is doing, go get the job if you can. Then, I consider whether I would have this same instinct 1-2 years ago, and I am not so sure I would have.
I think this phenomenon has a lot more to do with the psychology of this recession than anything else. I think people’s natural first instinct is to figure out how to take care of themselves and their families in times of scarcity, whether real or imagined.
Therefore, the answers to this question you posed says a lot more, I think, about how insecure and scared people are feeling in the current economy than anything else. I think lawmakers may want to consider how many people, even those that are really consciously trying to take care of their personal finances, like GRS readers, have been shaken by the economic turmoil to see how severe this recession is getting.
I also think this bodes poorly for giving to charities in the near future though, so even more of the safety net for those most at risk may be pulled away from them. I don’t have good answers here, just thoughts to ponder.
February 10th, 2009 at 9:13 am
Sorry, but that is absolutely insane! Using that argument, why doesn’t she quit her full-time job so someone else can have it? There are always going to be people more fortunate and less fortunate than you.
February 10th, 2009 at 9:15 am
(As Compounding was probably referring to) It is illegal to have a second job in France.
February 10th, 2009 at 9:22 am
I’m very much of the mind that them that get out and do something get to reap the benefits. To the person who commented that I am somehow taking a job away from someone that needs it if I were to go and work a second job, why? I’m not taking a job away from anyone, I’m applying for a job that they can apply for as well. If another person gets selected, OK. In this economic climate, it’s those who are willing to (borrowing a fairly well known vernacular) “leave the cave, kill something and drag it back home” that are going to have the best go of it.
February 10th, 2009 at 9:25 am
I gave it some thought and debated both sides of it, and the conclusion I came to is I don’t see anything wrong with it. If the employer hires you knowing you already have a job, great.
The flip side of that was when I was unemployed during the tech crash. I tried to find a number of jobs in the restaurant and retail industry to fill in the time. They wouldn’t hire me because they knew I would be looking for a new job. It sucked for me, but it eventually worked out. Employers can choose hire or not someone who already has a full time job. I would not want that choice taken away.
February 10th, 2009 at 9:26 am
I personally don’t see an ethical dilemma here but I am astounded at the attitude of so many of the responses; i.e., take care of yourself and the hell with anyone else.
February 10th, 2009 at 9:29 am
Absolutely not! As long as they are two completely separate jobs and neither are affecting your performance, I say go for it!
February 10th, 2009 at 9:31 am
When I came to the U.S as a European immigrant when I still was a 16-year old high school student, one of the first major culture shocks I had was the obsessions of Americans with work. Not only did school last from 8:00-4:00 with an additional 3-4 hours of homework every day, students no older than 15 or 16 also had 5:00 AM paper routes or were working in a supermarket until 11:00 PM. I see the same work obsession in the responses to this post.
Where is this attitude that one has to be working all the time, that only lazy people work only 40 hours a week, and that a meritocracy makes it justified to take on more work so long as one just beats another person to it coming from? Maybe someone else could fill the position if you don’t need the money. Is the world really going to become a better place if you just work a little bit longer, a little bit harder, and spend a little bit more more?
I agree that an entitlement mentality led to the current economic crisis, but in all fairness, there has been a relentless and well-financed campaign for the past 50 years telling you that our life will be better if we just spend more money on things we don’t really need. We have bought into this bull**** and the 40-hour work week has now become the 60 hour work week. We outsource childcare, we outsource lawn care, we outsource cooking - we outsource life. As you zealously broadcast your opinions on meritocracy, the elasticity of labour and how anyone who is not lazy could compete with you for any part-time job, I wonder whether you have simply resigned yourself to the fact that this is the new normal and you have to fight or whether you actually believe it should be the new normal.
For the record, I work between 50 and 60 hours a week, but the happiest people I have seen are the ones who work 40 hours a week and use the rest of their waking hours to enjoy each others company free of competitive pressures. They live modestly, but they spend time with their family.
Here, then, is my manifesto:
- I vow to work hard, but:
- I will have a stay-at home spouse who will be able to spend time with my child, prepare home-cooked meals and does not have to join the rat race;
- I will not be guilted into stimulating the economy which has turned into a pointless hamster wheel;
- I will save instead and live seriously below my means;
- I do not need a car, air conditioning or other luxuries people try to pass off to me as necessities;
- I will not put my child into competitive sports that breed the notion at an early age that it’s me vs. the other guy and I always have to fight to win - I believe in inter-human cooperation and not neo-Darwinism;
- I will unapologetically work for money but in as few years will exchange less time for less money.
February 10th, 2009 at 9:34 am
In the earlier part of this century (at least in Seattle), there was a debate that parallels the one JD has outlined here. The question was, should married women whose husbands earned “enough” to support their family be “allowed” to take paid, union jobs. One argument that points out the fallacy of not allowing anyone to take any work they can/want to get is that we do not consider it ethically suspect for people who are already wealthy enough to continue to hold paying jobs. If we are saying people shouldn’t get second jobs, shouldn’t we also say that the well-off should just get out of the work force and let someone else have a chance?
February 10th, 2009 at 9:36 am
Back in the mid 80’s I lived in an area that was very hard hit economically. People were losing jobs & homes right & left. Good jobs were scarce. I had just graduated from college & ended up taking a clerical data entry job full-time with flex hours for the benefits & supplemented that with 2 part-time jobs that paid better with no benefits. I rented a tiny place on the edge of a bad neighborhood & for a year I worked, slept & saved like my life depended on it. Living 1/2 block from a known drug house was great incentive. After a year I got a much better paying full-time job & dropped one of the part-time jobs. Six months after that I had saved enough to make a down payment on my first house, which happened to be a bank repo. All around me people were crying & moaning about not being able to find work & having to go on food stamps becuase unemployment didn’t pay enough. There were jobs if you wanted to work. They just weren’t great jobs. It was an Employer’s market & they were hiring & keeping only those who were hungry to work. I was eligible for food stamps the entire time I was working 3 jobs, but I never considered applying for it. Too many people will hold off applying for or taking a lesser job becuase they feel it is beneath them or that it won’t look good on their resume. Then the market becomes even tighter & the jobs they do finally go after has too much competition & the Employer sees the person hasn’t worked AT ALL in months. They looked at my resume where I showed all 3 jobs & their only question was if I planned on keeping the 2 part-time jobs if they hired me. My response: “Depends on how much you pay me & what your benefits package is.” We negotiated up front that the weeknite part-time job would go, but they knew up front I was keeping the weekend job.
February 10th, 2009 at 9:37 am
We all have a finite amount of time - in our day, week, lives. And we can make a choice to exchange our time for money when we decide to work for someone - there is no limit on this either by hours or how many people you work for. So if you want to exchange 100 hours of your time a week for money, then by all means, that is your right! Enjoy the money that becomes yours through the sacrifice of your time!
Has anyone read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand? She would be turning over in her grave at the thought of entertaining such a socialist question!