Naked Medicine

Let's Face It: Medicine is Business

Category: entrepreneurship

The Theranos Problem in One WSJ Graphic

Now that Theranos is allegedly/denying-trying to raise money, speculations continue as to whether it could survive the Wall Street Journal article, Hot Startup Theranos Has Struggled With Its Blood-Test Technology, or whether a big industry player may swoop down to acquire the company.

In terms of “who would be audacious (to use a polite word) enough to possibly merge/acquire Theranos”, I think a diagnostic company would be more a likely candidate… you know, one of the big players that Theranos was meant to “disrupt” the business of.

The short sighted assumption from many people thus far, is that Theranos was the only company that had the “foresight” to reduce sample volume required for blood based assays.

Can we actually believe that NONE of the big players NEVER considered the competitive advantage of reducing sample volume required from patients and human subjects? Are we saying that all these years no one had ever realized how many people hated needles, and the kind market leadership position one may gain if one creates an assay method that enables accurate sampling of mere drops of blood versus vials of blood?

When we look at Theranos’s “accuracy” compared with hospital results, most scientists familiar with the assay process can deduce the magnitude of what needs disrupting:

The best performance in the graphic from Theranos in terms of “accuracy” compared with a hospital result “standard”, is the glucose test.

This is nothing to be impressed about: getting the glucose reading right is no newer than the finger prick glucose draw available from today’s diabetes management devices. It only shows Theranos got their tech as right as what is already available in terms of a finger prick blood sugar test.

Perhaps someone can use current glucose monitoring technology, modify it so it could assay for Herpes (simplex type1), and see if the same “tech” transfers readily to accurately test for Herpes. This would offer an interesting data point to show just how novel the “Edison portfolio of technology” is.

This one graphic sums up the Theranos problem: the most accurate comparison is in a variable for which cheap and accessible diagnostic is available (glucose), and not for any variables for which wide clinical use are expected (liver function tests, which are critical for a variety of medications affecting liver function).

Theranos’s results are consistently “false positive” compared with hospital standard: if a clinician believes in the Theranos result, the clinician may order the patient to stop taking medications that the patient needed and was doing well on, but should no longer be taking because the results show that liver was being negatively affected, or the clinician could switch to another less effective medication for the patient out of concern for liver function. Either case, if the Theranos test was inaccurate, this would cause harm to the patient by unnecessarily disrupting treatment regimen that was otherwise appropriate.

This is not the kind of “disruption” healthcare providers want.

From a business perspective, Theranos’s FDA approved use for its product has a very narrow indication (Herpes), yet the test is commercially available without authorization from a licensed healthcare practitioner. This is great for the company’s bottom line, because the (federal) agency will have a tough time identifying which kits have been purchased for “approved” use and which kits are actually used “off-label”. The pricing advantage allows Theranos to reduce dependence on CMS reimbursement, by going straight to consumers. Liability becomes a matter of personal injury, which may be skirted when the consumers assume entire risk by “inappropriately using” the kit.

However, this is not great from a consumer protection standpoint.

We may subscribe to a conspiracy theory about major diagnostic and device companies colluding to keep an oligopoly on expensive assay machines and profit margins for assay kits, but from a business competition standpoint, the market dominance/leadership would be too attractive for a major player to ignore in the name of market oligopoly.

Value of Money

Depending on situation, money buys:

  • stability
  • security
  • choices
  • freedom
  • influence

I am under no delusion that most of what I enjoy today in my life: stability, security, choices (to work or not to work, to do certain types of work, to work only certain hours), and freedom (being able to immigrate and stay in this country) were supported by a level of financial means.

Read some personal accounts on Quora of why people have to go to “cash advance” gouge-level interest services or why they have to line up to renew food stamps, and I appreciate all the more how “money-supported stability” makes the difference between maintaining life in the middle class versus becoming a member of the working poor.

Thus, I can’t in my good conscience talk down money like I’m holier than needing a currency. All the other stuff like bartering and in-kind services are simply other currencies that “money” represents as the de-facto symbol.

Behavioral Economics in Personal Finance: How to Stop Over-Spending

Step 1: Control Your Purchasing Impulse By Removing Your Purchasing Ability.

Stop using all credit cards and use only cash. When you run out of cash, you don’t have money to buy anything anymore. You can be a major shopaholic: shop only in cash.

There are behavioral economics studies that have been done about what happens when your money is too far removed from cash. As soon as you abstract actual cash into a different form like tokens (as close to cash as you can get short of the actual coins) and then credit cards, your willingness to spend on impulse increases.

I’m not saying you shouldn’t use credit cards ever, but until you are disciplined enough to buy only what you can afford and you can pay off your entire credit balance every month for at least 6+ months… then cash-only will build the kind of habit that can help you manage your personal finances better. How about trying cash-only system for 1 month? It’s only 30 days but is incredibly powerful at showing you what you can actually afford and how expensive the “cheap little purchases” begin to add up.

A preferable behavioral outcome of Step 1 is for you to look for creative ways to cut costs where you can, such as buying used items, shopping for bargain items, and selling items you no longer use.

Step 2. Track Every Single Dollar into and out of Your accounts to Maximize “Pain of Paying” Reminders

I don’t use fancy programs — a simple Excel spreadsheet works for me. You can use online sites like and to track your bank accounts and credit card spends once you know you have the discipline to spend only within your means, or if you are absolutely unwilling to go all-cash-only for the next 30 days.

Being able to see and track every single purchase will continue to create “salience” of every dollar that is leaving your bank account, or every dollar you are borrowing at astronomical interests rates from credit card companies. I have my credit card email me every single time a charge over $1 is registered to my account. This means I will be reminded again of what amount I spent when I check my email, and it puts “the pain of paying” at the forefront of my mind. I also have the kind of credit card that requires full-balance payoff, so I can never hold a credit card balance that incurs any interest.

Step 3. Create Budget Projections for Next Quarter Spending.

Once you have 3 months worth of data, you start tracking trends. At this point I only track certain budget items (utilities mainly) on a monthly basis because I’m so familiar with the “typical” spending caps that any abnormal fluctuations will catch my attention. Having a budget will make you feel empowered. Since I’ve been doing this for a while, I begin to make adjustments based on major life events, such as how the household utility budget will change when we moved from an apartment to a house, and new costs that having a child will incur.

All this stuff may be a pain in the butt to make habitual early on, but once you do this and get used to it, you will make use of this every year for the rest of your life.

Part of Step 3 is also the Creation of, and Insurance for, a Financial Buffer. Some people call this an emergency fund, and it is basically a pad of financial security you save up for yourself for emergency situations to prevent yourself from spiraling into (too much) debt.

In order for this to work, you need to make sure that you insure yourself against events that will put you into debt. In the U.S. these costs tend to be accidents and medical/healthcare, which means people in the U.S. must insure their healthcare costs as well as insure against certain accidents or liabilities relating to their property or their lives (especially if they have dependents).

How do you set spending limits to ensure you save toward your future?

Marketing Works by Neutralizing Your Sense of Fair Market Value

The problem with customer “taste” or “preference” is that this is a subjective metric versus objective metric.

This is why marketing works by disrupting or neutralizing our sense of fair market value and at the same time, recalibrate our arbitrary sense of “worth” of a product.

Even if we have the means to objectively and rationally assess the “fair market value” of a product, marketing builds our perception around a product using very subjective measures that are meant to get us emotionally invested in the product, which then means we WANT to pay more because we will rationalize — “I’m worth it.”

A good example is the L’Oreal commercials here in the U.S. I don’t use their cosmetics but I have heard enough of their commercials to remember their slogan: “I’m worth it”.

— in other words, you can buy a $3 bottle of foundation from a no-name manufacturer. It contains the exact “key ingredients” as a $10-$15 bottle of brand name foundation. But hey — “I”m worth it!” Suddenly you are justified in purchasing a more expensive bottle of product because you are making a statement about your self worth NOT about fair market value.

Then — you add in subject aspects to that “worth it” marketing line, by adding perfumes and pretty bottles.

What has been even more interesting is how companies can now sell on “X-free”, and charge you more for giving you less.

Fragrance-free costs more than regular fragrance products.
Fat free costs more than regular fat-laden products.
Low sodium costs more than sodium-laden products.

Shouldn’t I pay more when I’m getting less?

No because I’m getting less “crap”, and I am taught by marketing that my health is worth the higher price I pay.

Why? Because I’m Worth It.

Psychology of Money and Expertise

A consultant who helps client make changes in their work and lives* is struggling to setting a price of her expertise. She likes to work strategically — and solve her clients’ problems as efficiently as possible.

Unfortunately, she is so efficient, that her clients perceive her services as a waste of time because “I must not need your help if you can solve my problem so easily in such a short amount of time”! Yet if it takes too long, then “I don’t have enough money in my budget for your services” — catch-22 of “damned if you’re too good, damned if you’re not good enough” at what you do!

Image by Svilen MilevI work in the knowledge field (also consulting but more like management consulting and leadership development) and see the exact same problems. I also tend to cut through crap, avoid page fillers in reports, and just give people the most important points they need to know since, you know, they all say how busy they are.

But I have realized that some people perceive value based on VOLUME.

Those who are experts will suffer from their expertise because of the perception paradox. Thus they WANT to get the 300 pages of worthless crap for $5000 (some industry reports cost this much esp. when it comes from “professional consultants”), because it makes them feel like they paid good money for it, versus the 10 pages that describe the heart of the problem and the pertinent actions to take, because suddenly – “hey, you are charging me $500 a page?” — er, no, I am charging you $500 for each mistake you don’t have to make that is going to cost you $50,000 to fix.

Thus for consultants in private practice, I suggest a hybrid of expertise and perception needs: you have to draw out the sessions so that you build a lot of “extra work” around the actual work, in order for the clients to FEEL like they’ve gotten their money’s worth and BELIEVE in the fairness of the exchange.

If you are a wizard and you can solve their decades-long emotional issues in 60 minutes, chunk this up into 6 sessions where 10 minutes is part of the actual work and 50 minutes is all the “nice to do but not critical work”.

Is this deceptive? I used to think so — until I learned the hard way, that part of working with any customer is meeting them where their perceptions are.

There will be customers who say, “cut through the crap and give me the 1 session for this price, I know enough to know what expertise look like”. For these customers I work with them in my preferred way of working: efficient and effective.

There will be customers who say, “no, I need you to hold my hand, I want the 6 session deal.” Both customers are RIGHT because they are the persons buying. People want to feel good and justified in their investment, you are giving the same important service, only you are also working with a perception problem around the value of that service.

If you’re a consultant struggling with setting fees, you can try your own experiment. Charge the same amount for 2 options, only label the 6-session option “for regular people” and the other 1-session option “for CEOs who have no time”. They’re priced the same, only now you’re working with each person’s perception of the value of their own time.

Giving Customer Less Choices Drives Up Business

I often marvel at how good business seems to be at “In N Out” burger, a popular burger “restaurant” in California.

In N Out is branching into other states – the company is private and doing extremely well, and the secret lies in it giving customers “less” choices than rival burger joints.

In N Out has a very simple menu and serves up “hamburger” “cheeseburger” “double cheeseburger” (called the “Double Double”). When you go there, you don’t have to guess what you’re going to get, you already know you’ll get a burger of some kind, or fries.

However, what In N Out appears to limit customers in menu choices, it compensates with a loyalty-inducing strategy: by positioning customer choices in the customization of the burger via a “hidden” or secret menu.

The customizations are often in “code” – like 3 by 3 or 4 by 4 (# of patties, # of slices of cheese) or “animal style” (extra sauce, extra pickles).

Having a simple menu that streamline operations as well as buying choices yet customizable “code-based” menu that creates a sense of “membership” among those In-n-Out patrons is ingenious.

This “The Variation of the Number of Choices” is a strategy in many markets and in companies like In N Out, is a key competitive advantage.

p.s. the double-double’s are also super yummy, I don’t care if it’s over 800 calories.

Golden Handcuffs

Professor Dan Ariely in his “LEGO experiment” (source: Ariely, D., Kamenica, E. & Prelec, D. (2008). Man’s Search for Meaning: The Case of Legos. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 67, 671-677.) tried to assess the effect of “meaning” in people’s work, by offering people less and less money to build LEGO toys until it was no longer worthwhile for them to build LEGO toys for pay.

Limit of LEGO Experiment
One of the limitations of this approach is that you may be dealing with “building fatigue” — people starting to get physically and mentally tired after a certain # of builds, and this would be a contributor to their refusal — not so much the decrease in money.

What if you let people rest for an hour (the duration of the average lunch break) and continue building for lower $? Would the lowest $ point change?

What About the Golden Handcuffs effect?
Image by question that is related to this lecture is what I’ve heard as the golden handcuffs: you no longer find meaning in your job but the money is just too good. Thus you keep doing a job you hate, because you don’t want to give up the money, even as other factors relating to motivation (intrinsic rewards) are at a all-time low.

How would you test this using an experiment? I’m just curious how we’d design an experiment around this. Should we have people build LEGOs for $3, $3.07, $4 etc… while someone yells into their ear saying “you suck!” to simulate demoralizing work condition?

I think a rational way to weigh the benefits and risks of golden handcuffs – based on my personal experience (yes, I have been there), goes something like this:


$$ Salary
$$ Health benefits
$ Bonuses, paid vacations, holidays
$ Stability, feeling of security however illusory


-$$ Work-related stress, depression requiring therapy
-$$ Personal strife due to work stress
-$ General negative health effects due to stress
-$ Having to pretend like I’m “Leaning In” when I feel like “Checking Out”

For the most part, I’m highly self-motivated, thus the “golden handcuff” effect has come largely due to demoralizing conditions due to work-related politics that appear well beyond my control, yet the consequences of these affect how well I am able to perform my work.

The Great Rationality Debate

I did a very brief summary of a review of research on irrational behaviors and why we make decisions that appear seemingly contradictory to our best interests or to “rational market forces”. I’m sharing this summary of the various decision-making concepts as entrepreneurs can definitely take away important lessons in how we work AND how our clients may decide. Source material: Tetlock, P. E., & Mellers, B. A. (2002). The great rationality debate. Psychological Science, 13(1), 94-99. Copyright is by permission of the © American Psychological Society.

1. Change v. States
We judge our gains and losses via our perception of status quo, not via an absolute scale (for example we compare our wealth with peers to judge whether we feel rich regardless of what we actually have).

2. Gains v. Losses
We don’t mind losing what we haven’t gotten but we hate losing what we already own.

The taxi driver example: instead of working more on “good” days to make more money, taxi drivers quit once they make that threshold dollar amount (example: “I expect to make $500 a day”) and then work longer day than the norm on a very “slow/bad” day. A rational approach would be to use an average (example: “I expect to make an average of $500 a day”) and then on good days work longer to make more $ and on slow days work about the same hours or shorter (example: day 1: $500 / day 2 $1500 / day 3 $100 / day 4 $400 / day 5 $0 [got mugged/got sick] = average $500 a day working about the same or even shorter hours)

3. One v. Several
Declaring loss hurts more than keeping a “paper loss” by keeping account open.

[I glossed over this one but it could use more substantive examples than keeping a losing stock example – I may come back to it.]

4. Narrow v. Broad Bracketing
We tend to evaluate and decide based on examining 1 item at a time versus overall picture (looking at the trees instead of the forest).

Example: When 25 divisional executives were asked to accept a project with 50% chance to gain $2M and 50% chance to lose $1M only 3/25 accepted the risk. On the other hand the company CEO was happy to accept 25 of these investment risks. This is because the divisional execs perceive the “trees” / small picture while CEO look at the “forest” / big picture. In the big picture, this is a smart calculated risk.

5. Inside v. Outside Views
We tend to decide based on self-centered analysis versus “objective” outside/situational analysis, risking overconfidence in how well our choice will play out.

Example: entrepreneurs entering excessive crowded market in spite of the market appearing saturated.
(Another example is me taking this class thinking “Of course I can handle it” while situational analysis all points to, “are you nuts?! You have no time!”)

6. Stable v. Constructed Preferences
This reminded me of the 1st concept where perception drives the decision. Preferences are made on the spot using current available cues versus weighing factors in the decision more absolutely.

Example: I need to buy a good, substantive music dictionary. If I am given individually a new looking dictionary of 10,000 entries versus a worn torn dictionary of 20,000 entries, I am more likely to choose the new looking product. On the other hand, if I am given BOTH (therefore I have a comparison) then I’ll pick the 20,000 entries option, which was what would better serve me because 20,000 entries > substantive than 10,000 entries regardless of appearance of delivery vehicle (appearance of the book itself).

7. Linear v. Nonlinear Decision
We tend to risk more when we think the probability to return is small. We tend to risk less when compare decision against a guarantee.

20% chance to win $4000 v. 25% chance to win $3200.
“I don’t have a good chance anyway, let me go for $4000”

80% chance to win $4000 v. 100% chance to win $3200
“I’m picking the sure thing: $3200 even if it’s less than $4000 and 80% is still a very good chance.”

8. Wholes v. Parts
This concept is about “unpacking a scenario” — the more details we gain around an event, regardless of the probability of these events, the more we will believe in the event happening — in other words we begin to add for ourselves the probability in our minds of this happening.

There may be a massive flood in N. America that will kill >1000 people.
“Yea….. right.”

There may be an earthquake that causes a dam to crack in California, causing a massive flood in N. America that will kill >1000 people.

9. One v. Many Utilities
People use their experience in the “ending” of an event and decide on their feeling about this experience, instead of the good or bad of the experience itself.

Painfully cold water for 1 minute
Painfully cold water for 1 minute then less painfully cold water for 30 more seconds

people picked the 1.5 minute submersion in cold water just for that 30 seconds of “less painfully cold” (but it is still painfully cold! just less.)

This is part of my study notes for enrollment in Coursera’s A Beginner’s Guide to Irrational Behavior by Dan Ariely. This is my first time taking a Coursera course and I’m excited that I have picked the right one to begin this online learning experience! Of course, I also think taking this class, at this time in my life, given how many things I’m juggling on my plate, is completely irrational in and of itself….

Before You Start a Home Based Business or Career


This is an under-appreciated aspect of starting any business, including a home-based business (entrepreneurial) or a home-based career (freelance, including as writers).

Image by Svilen MilevPeople who supply you with products and services don’t care how big your passion is.

I’m sorry that they don’t care, but they don’t care. They’ve heard all this before, from would-be consultants with starry eyes.

The electric company cares about whether you can pay the electric bill. The phone company cares about whether you can pay the phone bill. The landlord, if you decide to rent, wants to make sure you have enough for 6-12 months lease.

This requires you having some form of collateral or a “large” bank balance. “Large” means 6 months of living expenses, which is something I’d recommend any parents to save up anyway, regardless of employment status.

I saved up 12 months of living expenses prior to starting my consulting business. I realize I’m on the conservative side and 6 months can work as well of a financial buffer.

Also, the more years you’ve been at this, the easier it becomes to get an average income to show people that you aren’t a fly-by-night “consultant/writer/blogger/entrepreneur” and that you are in serious business.

Until then, you need to have a substantive bank account.

I realize some of you do this out of necessity than a carefully engineered choice. Hopefully you already have an ’emergency fund’ saved up for a few months’ living expenses and this can serve as your “start-up financial buffer” if you cannot save up any more before launching.

This financial buffer is also helpful to get you focused on starting on the right foot, which does not look like you’re desperate to pitch for every prospect and to throw yourself at the foot of every possible client.


I’ve given people the following 2 exercises to try, as a way to get them brainstorming in the right direction. I will use consulting as a general example: you can change the labels for your industry’s term for “customer” if you like.

Exercise 1. You are now a consultant, congratulations! You are sitting at your desk when the phone rings. You pick up. The voice on the other end of the line says,

“I am so glad I got through, Jane. I’ve called around 5 other consultants and at this point, I think you are the right person to help me. I have this problem and this is right up your alley, do you have time to talk about this?”

  • Tell me the job title and psychographic/demographic profiles of this customer and his/her business/industry
  • Tell me what the customer’s problem is
  • Tell me why YOU and not 5 of your other competitors are the right person to deal with this

Exercise 2. Imagine you get a green-light for a very exciting consulting project. You receive the budget for the next 3 months on this consulting project and you start Monday.

  • Write the role description for yourself (list 3-5 major activities).
  • Write the profile of your target audience in this role.
  • Write the 3 key results you should achieve by the end of this business quarter (3 months).


This trips me up every time. I pile too much on my plate, then at the end of the day or week I felt like I haven’t accomplished much.

I’m not a “stay at home” parent. I’m not a “working” parent. I am a stay at home + work from home parent, this is an important distinction and hybrid model to define. My living space is both my home and work. I have access to work load and parenting duties and I never know when I’m called for either (or both at the same time, which I try not to have happen too often).

I’ve learned to go back to the early days when I was a sleep deprived, semi-delirious new parent and focus on one key item per day.

This doesn’t mean I don’t have many projects in the burner at once. But I stopped beating myself up over not getting to all of them within the same day. I also make the goal manageable per day because I don’t want to feel guilty about not spending enough time with my child or not getting enough done with my work.

Jane Chin

The Anti-Job Mafia

There has been a new breed of “self-help” / personal development “experts” and self-proclaimed gurus who are trying to convince us that if everyone isn’t quitting his or her jobs and “being their own bosses” (self-employment) then they must be stupid.

What these people don’t tell you that most of their “rags to riches” successes happen to have “first to market/niche” advantage.

So they become successful, partly because they do have an interesting product/service (maybe it’s long self-help articles “for free”, maybe it’s blogging as a “profession/for money”, maybe it’s internet marketing or affiliate marketing) — but what they won’t always say upfront is that they also got lucky.

Why? Because you can’t sell luck as a 30-day money back guarantee “system” to lots of people.

You can’t create autoresponders with 10 emails “for free” that will use a pitch to buy a webinar or a course or whatever affiliate item the person may also be selling. You can’t upsell your mailing list into consulting sessions or more expensive coaching fees or 2-day workshops at a resort where for an increased price you can also purchase tickets to an “exclusive” networking lunch.

Notice how often get rich quick schemes and even bona fide “get rich” schemes use the word SYSTEM. They use this because they want you to believe that if you just follow “the system” you too, will be as successful as them, but every one of them will also use a disclaimer at the bottom of their sites to say they’re not making claims of earnings. In other words, “I want you to believe me and take me at my word, but I also don’t want you to sue me in case I was wrong/didn’t tell you the whole story.”

As an entrepreneur and someone who hasn’t held the kind of “job” that these self-help “experts” admonishes against, I think the statement is ludicrous, based on misleading logic, and harmful to many people who are best served holding jobs.

Let me go through some common arguments against holding jobs as an insider — like I said, I’ve “not held a job” since 2004 and I even achieved a certain level of “success” on my own terms, so I have a bit of credibility even though I have no desire to sell you my “secret system” —

Trading Time for Money as Inferior Income

If you hold a job (some say job should stand for “just over broke” but I’ve had jobs that’s made me relatively wealthy so this acronym does not hold true for all jobs) where you get paid in a predictable, contractually binding manner and federally mandated paid holidays, then you must be a dummy. Because you aren’t being self employed as an entrepreneur where you get no benefits, no guarantees, where you may find yourself doing a lot of “free consulting” to build up credibility in the beginning, and no days off, which, according to the anti-job mafia, is the hallmark of enlightened money-making.

There are some occupations where yes, you DO have to trade time for money, and guess what, IT IS A FAIR TRADE. Teachers, nurses, physicians, scientists, engineers, construction workers, police officers. I would not want any of these people trying to dream up ways of quitting their jobs because they think they’re being “dummies”.

You Work Long, Mind-Numbing Hours for an Evil Boss

Ask any entrepreneur and start-up founder how many hours they work. They’ll all tell you that they work longer hours than they’d ever worked “at a job”. Those people who talk about working 4 hour weeks? They’ve already put in the hours ahead of time where they can outsource the rest, so if you have capital to outsource and the luck to be first to market in a catchy niche with a great marketing title, you too can be enjoying hours on the beach (or asleep) while your “system” makes money for you.

If you’re working long and mind-numbing hours, you’ll find that you may either be in the wrong job (you seek more intellectual stimulation, but you signed up for a job that is mostly routine and predictable) or you’ve hit upon a plateau that is common in most employment and even self-employment: employment ennui happens, even to entrepreneurs. Don’t think for a minute ennui is always bad. If your job is constantly like a can of Red Bull (or whatever energy drinks people are shooting up their veins these days), you’re gonna age very, very quickly from the over-exertion of your nervous system. Embrace the ennui — sometimes it’s a part of life and it may have an evolutionary purpose!

As for the evil boss… Have you tried working for yourself? I have, and I’m the worst biggest baddest slave-driver I’ve ever met. I will keep myself working even when I get sick. What these anti-job people don’t tell you is that at least at a job, you get sick days. The only time when I took a sick day was when I was literally unable to get off the floor, I was so sick. Same goes for vacations.

You become Socially Inept and You’re Not Free as an Employee

My husband, who has a traditional “job” has an incredibly vibrant social life because he happens to have hobbies. Hobbies — now that is something I don’t understand, because I don’t have time for hobbies, I’m too busy figuring out how else I can make passive income so I can earn a ton of money while I sleep, or sit and relax on the beach.

When my husband comes home from work, he’s home, body and mind. He’s not obsessing about stuff at work, he’s able to enjoy his hobbies because they don’t mix with his work (something I don’t understand, either) and because of this, I see him as quite free. I on the other hand, may be in the most exotic place in the world, but I’m still obsessing over my business, because unlike a regular job, if I don’t “get business”, I don’t get paid.

And don’t even get me started about “job insecurity”. Look up statistics of entrepreneurship failures and tell me how you can say that jobs that are defined with contractual exchange in value is less secure than a venture that is often ill defined with no contractual exchange in value and where you deal with more tire-kickers than true clients (even when you have bought “a system”)?

I too, once thought that most of the stuff on that list must be true. Yea, I’ve bought the tapes/CDs, I’ve read the books, I’ve checked out “the system” and I’ve read the autoresponders and the newsletters and I’ve had a taste of the upsell and cross-sell.

Then I found out for myself, and I have listened to and observed many others like me, how untrue and misleading that type of advice is. I sometimes look at my husband’s work life balance with envy, and I’m only still doing this because it’s in my nature and it’s what I truly love to do. If this weren’t the case I’d be applying to a job in a jiffy.

Naked Medicine © 2016 Frontier Theme