Not a single thing.
The thought that a fully-employed person should feel bad for taking another job for additional income is absolutely preposterous. This discussion over at Get Rich Slowly was prompted by this question from one of his readers:
As someone who is still fortunate to be employed, is it morally or ethically wrong for me to look for additional work and income?
The reader suggested to a friend that they get a part-time job at a local business for some extra income. This angered her friend; she was accused of trying to take away a job from someone else who needed it more.
This is baloney. If someone else needed that job more, why isn't someone else working at that job already? They couldn't have needed it that badly now, could they? If one were to consider only people who can physically do the job — those who can get there, will commit the time, and who can do what the potential employer wants — then it just becomes a matter of who raises their hand and says, “Yes, I'll do the work you're asking for what you're offering.” Why should some people (namely those who have other jobs) not be allowed to raise their hand or be shamed for doing so?
An employer, when faced with a number of qualified people raising their hands at the same time, should likewise be free to decide which of the candidates is the most qualified, and pick that person (or those people). If the most qualified person happens to have another job, why should it matter? (Now, if “flexible work hours” are a requirement for the job, then someone without another job would hopefully have more flexible hours than someone with another job, and hence the person without another job would be more qualified that the person with another job. It all “works out” for the person without another job in this case, but this doesn't imply that it should work out every time for the person without another job.)
Actually, it's totally unimportant whether someone needs the job more than someone else. An employer doesn't hire someone just because that someone needs a job. They hire someone because they need someone to do work. Jobs are created by employers, and filled by employees — the best-qualified employees if the employer does it right.
Everyone gets 168 hours per week. There are consequences for every decision we make regarding how to use those 168 hours. If we decide to use 40 hours per week to earn money, there are consequences for that decision. If we decide to use 20 of the remaining 128 hours to earn money someplace else, there are consequences for that decision, too. They could be good (extra financial cushion, extra skills learned, extra contacts made, forfeiting time that was used unproductively) or bad (extra stress on first job, extra stress on family, forfeited time that could be spent more productively). But again, why should someone be prevented from exercising their right to choose how to spend their time and feel the consequences, good or bad, from that choice? I don't think they should.
Jobs are scarce these days. They'll get scarcer. It's always wise to save for a rainy day. It's easier to save for a rainy day when the sun is shining, but the need for saving for a rainy day is much clearer when it's beginning to drizzle, even though there's less time to save.
Do what you can to save more. Taking a second job will let you save more by earning more. Then, if personal disaster strikes and you lose your primary job, you'll be in a better position to muddle through. Or, you may have that second job to help you mudle through even longer. You won't have to go out looking for it.
thank you for bringing this up & including a rational dissection of it 🙂
while it's not a bad ethical question to ask, the "no! you selfish soNso" response is way out of line.
The fact people are claiming this might be unethical is ridiculous. Go live in China, or some other communist China if you feel that way. People have the right to do what they want with their time.
Taking a second job isn't wrong at all as far as taking a job from someone else, but it's wrong for the one taking it if it steals more of his life without having an extremely pressing reason to do so.
you just got to love socialism! "Taking" someone else's job. Jeebus. Next this person will want that second job to be taxed higher since it's not necessary.
I'm totally with you here. I bet the people who believe this is unethical also have never needed money, worked for minimum wage, etc. The whole argument is just ridiculous.
I do not quite understand what's the big deal. You need money, you take a second job. That's your life and your personal decisions.
Amen! Competition in the worker pool drives better productivity. Everyone should be encouraged to work hard. That is much better for our society and our economy than this economic stimulus nonsense the government wants to shove down our throats.
You’re not stopping qualified people from applying and the added income can help the economy.As Paul mentioned, competition can also improve productivity, which in turn helps the economy.
As a broke recent grad, I found myself working two jobs. When my co-workers found out, it made for hot gossip. Stupid me, I quit the second gig – even though I really needed it to repay student loan debt and make ends meet.
It wasn't moral or ethical considerations that prompted gossip – it was more like "what's wrong with her that she can't magically pay for everything with this one modest salary?" I should have held my head up high and erased that debt when I had free time. As you say, they're my 168 hours!
Here in mexico, everyone has a second or third job. So nothing is wrong with more than one job. Do what you have to do to feed your family.
I understand your point from an employer's point of view and also from a mercenary employee's perspective. I don't think you are addressing the ethical concerns some people hold for others.
You are assuming axiomatically that attaining a position indicates that you are by definition harder working and more qualified than the rest of the workforce. That simply isn't true: other members of the workforce may simply not have found out about the position or have yet to apply (possibly because they are applying elsewhere.)
That said, I think there is an argument to be made for the increased productivity resulting from the immediate occupation of available positions.
The underlying question is how comfortable we are individually with the unequal distribution of resources. Very few people judge one another harshly when they are simply struggling to meet their necessities. On the other hand, when second jobs are not taken to meet bare subsistence but to subsidize extravagances.
How would you answer the question if it is framed in this way:
Is it morally or ethically wrong for a person to take a second job that will furnish them with purely expendable income if it would otherwise have gone to the next applicant, who the prospective employee knew to be more qualified and would be using the income for subsistence?
Most people resort to evasions given this dilemma, asserting it is unrealistic, the other applicant would already have a job, etc..
But taken as it is, what is your answer?
No, that isn't morally or ethically wrong, but the question isn't what I'd call straight. What one does with his money, and with his life, is more significant in determining a comfortable financial position than how much money comes in. Can you answer what is "basic" or what is "enough"? It totally depends on the person.
Personally, I think it is very wrong for anyone to have to take a second job for subsistence. One *real* job should be enough. Anyone can do things on the side of his primary employment. And those who actually get insufficient income from their employment ought to take into account the cost of that employment. If you value your money, time and the idea that waste is a bad thing, you do not commute. You do not have multiple automobiles, as in supporting an automobile for the sake of a second job (like a spouse's job). For people who don't earn lots of money to literally waste, it is not appropriate to do these things. And for those who do, it is still something to think about. I think people rarely think of the high cost of certain employment.
I don't think there's anything wrong with taking a second job.
If there's an open position, business should pick whoever is most qualified for the role – regardless of if the applicant has one job or three jobs.
If they're incapable of handling multiple jobs, that would show itself over time.
I don't get why some people are so against a second job.
There is nothing wrong with taking a second job…or a third job. I have several jobs. One is my professional job in banking. That is a risky sector to be in right now so I have a work at home job and a direct selling business. I don't make a lot of money from either right now but if I lost my job and invested more time they are available. Now, they both provide me with a little additional emergency fund money.
Having lived in the UK all my life, I know for sure that the british people would never think of having 2 jobs. However, I have come across many asians who seem to be quite comfortable working 2 jobs at a time. It’s normal for those who work hard.
I’m not sure it is correct to say that British people would never think of having two jobs. I know plenty of British people juggling two jobs to make ends meet.