Even though Tina Brown brings up some good points especially the fact that "now that people nearer the top are learning firsthand about the wonders
of “individual initiative” and “self-reliance,” a little more
sympathy—maybe even solidarity—with those the meritocracy dismissed as
losers may be in order", I have to disagree with her assumption that people with more than one occupation are as she calls it 'doing three things badly'.
In The Gig Economy (Daily Beast, January 12) she makes it sound like those of us whose professional life is multifaceted are 'hustlers' jumping from one gig to another and not caring one bit how the job is done.
It might be true for some 'kings of the universe' who fell off their throne but for many others, lay people, whatever their field(s) are, has Tina heard of something called work ethic.
I do not see why someone could not be as good a cook as they are a musician if this is what their Slashes are.
Why is it different from managing different projects?
There are schedule conflicts, clients and projects to deal with.
One of my uncles had a carpentry business in the Pyrenees. Due to the weather, his spring and summer workload was heavy so he had to juggle the ongoing jobs.
What is so different from what Tina Brown describes in her Daily Beast piece?
In the end, whatever our occupation is, most of us want to do it well.
Being wise can mean turning that one job that might throw everything in disarray.
Why is diversification advocated for financial matters and considered a bad thing regarding work?
Tina Brown has a point as far as job benefits go yet many full time jobs offer paltry benefits or in many cases none.
Thanks to Marci Alboher for putting 'The Gig Economy' on my radar.
Related: Stop Obsessing on Perfect Job, Slash: 'One Person/ Multiple Careers'