[ryanmcbride]

From the perspective of these kids real work probably involves working with your hands. I don't think we need to get too upset over what people who have yet to enter the workforce have to say about "real work". They need to be employed for a few years before they learn the lesson that almost ALL work is fake work.

[bombcar]

My definition of real work is - can I point at something and be proud of it? It might not even be something physical (but often is) and my involvement may not be obvious (say, managing the spreadsheets for a building project), but there it is, the thing I worked on.

[hirvi74]

That seems like more of test of self-esteem. I can work on something yet still not be proud of it, for example.

[bombcar]

Yes - but it’s part of it for me. Digging a giant hole would be real hard work, and something I can point at, but I might not be proud of it; it may have no point.

[hirvi74]

Sure, and my goal is to not that part away from you.

Just to clarify, if said hole had no point, then would it be real work or not? What if the hole was merely a step in a grand plan? As in, if the end result provides a sense of pride, then does the aggregated amount of real vs. fake work that lead to final product have any bearing on the pride of the final product?

[bombcar]

I guess it comes down to the teleology - the reason why the work is done. If the end has no relation to the work (e.g., it comes down to the dollars) then I think you’re going to be a bit unsatisfied no matter how well remunerated. Terms like “pointless” and “busywork” come into play.