So, a common criticism I see of universal basic income recently is
more of a moral one than a practical one. It suggests that work is
necessary for one’s life, by organizing their life and giving them
purpose, and that without work peoples’ mental health would suffer. They
argue that even in a world in which humans do not have to labor, that
labor is good for them.
Work ethic from my perspective
I must emphasize that work ethic is something that is cultural in my opinion. I don’t believe it is something that is innate to the human experience, but something imposed by modern society.
On the one hand, this work ethic is necessary for the functioning of society. It’s a good thing in this sense. We need goods and services work is how you get them. But in a society where work can be automated away, people are arguing we still need work, which I see as problematic. If we don’t need it, why should we keep it around?
Work, from a more sinister conflict theory perspective, is basically the idea that work ethic exists for the benefit of the rich. Remember my post on who benefits? Continue to ask that with work ethic, is work ethic really good for one’s own sake, or is it something imposed on us to make the rich people money? You decide, but I think that it’s about controlling people and turning them into “willing slaves” of sorts. The peasant class becomes dependent on the noble class for resources, and works their land, and their factories, and their farms. It’s basically feudalism reimagined.
There’s also a bit of protestant work ethic found in a lot of these arguments, and that’s what I’m going to focus most of my argument on. Remember me talking about that in my previous article on work? It used to be said that idle hands do the work of the devil, and that people need to work to find salvation. The theory goes that without work, people would fall into all kinds of debauchery. They would drink, they would gamble, they would have unsanctioned sex, and the fabric of society would fall apart. Work saves peoples’ souls, and is necessary to keep them out of trouble. The way to show you really love God and are saved is through hard work and discipline.
There’s a lot of that mentality in the arguments I’ve seen against a post work world with a basic income. And I really see that as holding society back. The way I see it, if we can take care of our functioning needs without work, then we shouldn’t keep work around. People don’t need to be ‘saved” through work, and work ethic is really just something imposed on us for a combination of practical reasons and to serve the interests of the rich.
Why does a lack of work impact mental health?
Well, despite these arguments against work ethic and a work filled world, a lot of people aren’t convinced. People ask, well, if a lack of work is so great, why are the unemployed so miserable? It’s said unemployment is one of the only factors that cause permanent life dissatisfaction. One can lose a limb and be miserable, but their happiness will rebound. However, someone unemployed won’t.
I really have a good alternate explanation here found in sociology. You see, 200 years ago, Emile Durkheim, one of the original sociologists, studied suicide rates, and discovered the concept of anomie. Anomie is basically seen as a kind of restlessness and dissatisfaction with life. It comes when the goals and norms of what a life is and how it should be are out of touch with reality. Put in layman’s terms, when you’re raised to believe life should be a certain way, and it isn’t because the social structures fail to live up to the norms, it causes a lot of hopelessness. It makes people unhappy and miserable. They feel inadequate. And sometimes they commit suicide, as per Durkheim’s original theory.
In our society, jobs are a defining factor of life. For some people jobs are their lives. People not having a job not only means one has a lack of money, it also leads to social disapproval and feeling like a failure, because we live in a society in which success is defined by your job. Your social status is defined by your job, and if you don’t have a job, you are likely considered to be pond scum. It’s no wonder, between the financial hardships and social stigma, that not having a job makes one miserable. However, it’s not act like it has to be this way. This is a product of society. This is a product of anomie.
The solution here is to change our social expectations in entering a post work world to reflect a post work world, rather than trying to force people into the box as it exists. If you look at the article on anomie above, you’ll see that a society’s rigidness in upholding norms and social structures that are incompatible with reality is the core cause of anomie. Here, we have a system in which everyone must work, but not everyone can find work. There is a rigid requirement that cannot be met. Textbook anomie. The solution isn’t benevolent paternalism that we need jobs for our own good. The solution is changing our attitudes toward work.
Quite frankly, this is a difficult task. Merely suggesting one doesn’t want to work puts an intense stigma on a person that makes them the worst of the worst. It’s bad to be called lazy in our society, or a moocher. We value individualism, we value work ethic, we value paying one’s own way. There’s serious social stigmas against moving toward a post work world, and these seriously have to change. We can do it if we want to. And it will be great. But honestly, the real problem here is changing our work ethic to match the world we live in, not keeping the status quo going when it’s coercive. And let’s not forget that. Work, as it exists, is coercive. There is no real option to say no. I have no problem with people wanting to work. I have no problem with the idea of work. But we need to keep in mind what we are proposing in rejecting a post work world. We insist on FORCING people to work, on stigmatizing them if they don’t work…forever. Even if we can make society so much better, so much easier, and so much more humane, we need to force people to work for their own good because of the mental health consequences of not doing so, which are totally self inflicted. We are slaves to our own crappy social conventions. It’s scary.
The way I see it, if people want to work, and I’m sure most people, even in a post work world, will find their time to do something they see as worth while, it should be voluntary. If people want to sit on the couch and watch netflix all day, let them. If they want to go out and tackle whatever social cause of their choice for free, or innovate and make the next new technology, let them. If people are that self driven and really want to work, as some people would, let them. To paraphrase Jurassic Park, work, uh…will find a way. But let’s dispense with actually forcing people under the pretense of benevolent paternalism, which is really what all of this is about. This idea that everyone must work is what is holding us back as a society, and is causing immeasurable pain and suffering as it exists. We need to make our social norms less rigid, and less strict, to adapt to the people and the times. We need to give people freedom, not keep them on a treadmill of working to live even when such a convention long outlives its actual usefulness.
Work ethic from my perspective
I must emphasize that work ethic is something that is cultural in my opinion. I don’t believe it is something that is innate to the human experience, but something imposed by modern society.
On the one hand, this work ethic is necessary for the functioning of society. It’s a good thing in this sense. We need goods and services work is how you get them. But in a society where work can be automated away, people are arguing we still need work, which I see as problematic. If we don’t need it, why should we keep it around?
Work, from a more sinister conflict theory perspective, is basically the idea that work ethic exists for the benefit of the rich. Remember my post on who benefits? Continue to ask that with work ethic, is work ethic really good for one’s own sake, or is it something imposed on us to make the rich people money? You decide, but I think that it’s about controlling people and turning them into “willing slaves” of sorts. The peasant class becomes dependent on the noble class for resources, and works their land, and their factories, and their farms. It’s basically feudalism reimagined.
There’s also a bit of protestant work ethic found in a lot of these arguments, and that’s what I’m going to focus most of my argument on. Remember me talking about that in my previous article on work? It used to be said that idle hands do the work of the devil, and that people need to work to find salvation. The theory goes that without work, people would fall into all kinds of debauchery. They would drink, they would gamble, they would have unsanctioned sex, and the fabric of society would fall apart. Work saves peoples’ souls, and is necessary to keep them out of trouble. The way to show you really love God and are saved is through hard work and discipline.
There’s a lot of that mentality in the arguments I’ve seen against a post work world with a basic income. And I really see that as holding society back. The way I see it, if we can take care of our functioning needs without work, then we shouldn’t keep work around. People don’t need to be ‘saved” through work, and work ethic is really just something imposed on us for a combination of practical reasons and to serve the interests of the rich.
Why does a lack of work impact mental health?
Well, despite these arguments against work ethic and a work filled world, a lot of people aren’t convinced. People ask, well, if a lack of work is so great, why are the unemployed so miserable? It’s said unemployment is one of the only factors that cause permanent life dissatisfaction. One can lose a limb and be miserable, but their happiness will rebound. However, someone unemployed won’t.
I really have a good alternate explanation here found in sociology. You see, 200 years ago, Emile Durkheim, one of the original sociologists, studied suicide rates, and discovered the concept of anomie. Anomie is basically seen as a kind of restlessness and dissatisfaction with life. It comes when the goals and norms of what a life is and how it should be are out of touch with reality. Put in layman’s terms, when you’re raised to believe life should be a certain way, and it isn’t because the social structures fail to live up to the norms, it causes a lot of hopelessness. It makes people unhappy and miserable. They feel inadequate. And sometimes they commit suicide, as per Durkheim’s original theory.
In our society, jobs are a defining factor of life. For some people jobs are their lives. People not having a job not only means one has a lack of money, it also leads to social disapproval and feeling like a failure, because we live in a society in which success is defined by your job. Your social status is defined by your job, and if you don’t have a job, you are likely considered to be pond scum. It’s no wonder, between the financial hardships and social stigma, that not having a job makes one miserable. However, it’s not act like it has to be this way. This is a product of society. This is a product of anomie.
The solution here is to change our social expectations in entering a post work world to reflect a post work world, rather than trying to force people into the box as it exists. If you look at the article on anomie above, you’ll see that a society’s rigidness in upholding norms and social structures that are incompatible with reality is the core cause of anomie. Here, we have a system in which everyone must work, but not everyone can find work. There is a rigid requirement that cannot be met. Textbook anomie. The solution isn’t benevolent paternalism that we need jobs for our own good. The solution is changing our attitudes toward work.
Quite frankly, this is a difficult task. Merely suggesting one doesn’t want to work puts an intense stigma on a person that makes them the worst of the worst. It’s bad to be called lazy in our society, or a moocher. We value individualism, we value work ethic, we value paying one’s own way. There’s serious social stigmas against moving toward a post work world, and these seriously have to change. We can do it if we want to. And it will be great. But honestly, the real problem here is changing our work ethic to match the world we live in, not keeping the status quo going when it’s coercive. And let’s not forget that. Work, as it exists, is coercive. There is no real option to say no. I have no problem with people wanting to work. I have no problem with the idea of work. But we need to keep in mind what we are proposing in rejecting a post work world. We insist on FORCING people to work, on stigmatizing them if they don’t work…forever. Even if we can make society so much better, so much easier, and so much more humane, we need to force people to work for their own good because of the mental health consequences of not doing so, which are totally self inflicted. We are slaves to our own crappy social conventions. It’s scary.
The way I see it, if people want to work, and I’m sure most people, even in a post work world, will find their time to do something they see as worth while, it should be voluntary. If people want to sit on the couch and watch netflix all day, let them. If they want to go out and tackle whatever social cause of their choice for free, or innovate and make the next new technology, let them. If people are that self driven and really want to work, as some people would, let them. To paraphrase Jurassic Park, work, uh…will find a way. But let’s dispense with actually forcing people under the pretense of benevolent paternalism, which is really what all of this is about. This idea that everyone must work is what is holding us back as a society, and is causing immeasurable pain and suffering as it exists. We need to make our social norms less rigid, and less strict, to adapt to the people and the times. We need to give people freedom, not keep them on a treadmill of working to live even when such a convention long outlives its actual usefulness.
Voluntary Retirement
To add strength to the idea that people who don’t work don’t need to go insane, look no further than retirees. Bingo, golf, traveling the US in a camper if they can afford it. A lot of people who can retire and do live happy, fulfilling lives as long as their health remains intact. The deal with retirees is that they don’t have the social stigmas that others who are not unemployed do. People who retire are seen to have earned their time off. People who are unemployed are the scum of the earth who must find jobs. See the difference in how we treat people?
Same goes with summer vacation for kids. Remember summer vacation? I do. I looked forward all year to those three glorious months in which I was free from the daily grind of school. I would literally cry in my bedroom the day before I had to go back because I dreaded it. I dreaded having my life regimented around school. I dreaded homework. I dreaded a loss of free time. Quite frankly, children play and love to play. Our system forces them and regiments them to work. And by the time they’re adults they’re good little work mules who know no different, and then not working is stigmatized. Once again, see the difference in how we treat people?
Honestly, the way I see it, a lack of work is not, in and of itself, a bad state. It’s actually a great state. It’s the “bestest” state to be in. It’s freedom. And if you have the ability, ie, the money to enjoy it, as many children and retirees do, it’s great. it’s only miserable for the unemployed because we insist they must be miserable…to coerce them to work. It’s inflicted by our current social norms. And in a post work society, where everything is automated and we have the ability to just give everyone a check, such norms are no longer necessary and are harmful.
Social isolation, health, and other problems
Some people say work is good because it forces people to be social and regiments their life to make them healthier. This might be true in some cases. However, if humans are inherently social, socialness will…uh…find a way. I’m not very social and am somewhat isolated, but I still find ways have friends. And quite frankly, I don’t want to be forced to socialize with people I don’t want to get along with. I mean, how many people necessarily get along with coworkers? Not many. How many people can trust their coworkers? Not many. How many people form life bonds with coworkers? Not many. They’re just kinda people you tolerate in a lot of cases. You shouldn’t have to be forced to be with them. That’s benevolent paternalism again.
As for health, look, utilitarian wise, the health argument is a good one. Work may cause people to be healthier and live longer, since working a physical job will likely make you more fit than sitting around, but you have to ask, at what cost? Is it worth forcing people, putting them under intense stress, robbing them of their time, of their agency? Not necessarily. You have to give some people room to make their own choices. Sometimes freedom has more benefits than being forced to do something does. We don’t force people to not eat fast food or drink soda. Because we believe in freedom. Sometimes people need to choose for themselves, even if it leads to sub optimal outcomes at times. It’s good for the government to foster more freedom and security at times, but I don’t feel like it’s worth forcing people to work “for their own good”. I’m really resenting the benevolent paternalism the pro work do gooders want to force on people. Not to mention many jobs don’t really make people healthy. Some are very stressful, pay poorly, and involve sitting in front of a computer all day; all of these factors hurt health too, and are job inflicted.
"Society will collapse, people will die"
A lot of people also make the argument that if you give a man a fish you feed him for a day, if you teach a man to fish you feed them for their lives. They will also point out how the reason you don’t feed wild animals is that without that support, they will die. The argument here is that humans need work to survive because if society were ever to collapse, they wouldn’t know how to deal with it, and people will die.
Okay, but imagine this. Imagine society collapsed tomorrow. Imagine a solar flare or EMP knocks out our power grid. Imagine nuclear war or disease or zombie apocalypse destabilizes society. How many people would survive? Uh…not many. I’m sorry, but asking people “would you like fries with that” all day long isn’t going to help you. Being able to code in an age where computers no longer exist or are rare is not going to help you. The fact is, if you dropped most people in the middle of the woods these days and asked them to survive, many wouldn’t. People can’t live off the land. They cant protect themselves from wild animals. They can’t tell what plants are safe to eat and what are poisonous. The fact is, our modern society has already long left the state of nature, and if society were to collapse, all the work ethic in the world would not save them. Being able to survive in a modern capitalist society does not mean one is able to survive in nature. People are already too domesticated to go back to living how we lived and being able to survive.
Conclusion
I think I really countered an argument against work ethic as it exists fairly well here. The fact is, this idea that work is good for humans, in and of itself, sounds a lot like benevolent paternalism imposed on us for above, and in reality, may not even be very benevolent in some cases. It’s really this idea that can be traced back to Calvinism that work exists to save people, and without work, they will fall into sinfulness, or its modern equivalent, poor mental health. But as I discussed, the core issue surrounding mental health seems to come from the concept of anomie, that is, a mismatch between society’s expectations and its realities. Instead of trying to force the realities to match these expectations aren’t good to begin with, we should change society to match the realities.
In the future, when automation becomes more frequent, there’s going to be a debate over whether people should continue to work, or whether we give them an income and free them from the drudgery of work. I believe people should be freed in such a case, and I believe a lack of work should be destigmatized. I have nothing wrong with people who do want to work, but this idea that under such circumstances that everyone must work sounds like a load of benevolent paternalism to me. Even if there are, at times, some minor benefits from forcing people to work, does not mean they should be forced to do so for their own good. I believe freedom should take precedence.
To add strength to the idea that people who don’t work don’t need to go insane, look no further than retirees. Bingo, golf, traveling the US in a camper if they can afford it. A lot of people who can retire and do live happy, fulfilling lives as long as their health remains intact. The deal with retirees is that they don’t have the social stigmas that others who are not unemployed do. People who retire are seen to have earned their time off. People who are unemployed are the scum of the earth who must find jobs. See the difference in how we treat people?
Same goes with summer vacation for kids. Remember summer vacation? I do. I looked forward all year to those three glorious months in which I was free from the daily grind of school. I would literally cry in my bedroom the day before I had to go back because I dreaded it. I dreaded having my life regimented around school. I dreaded homework. I dreaded a loss of free time. Quite frankly, children play and love to play. Our system forces them and regiments them to work. And by the time they’re adults they’re good little work mules who know no different, and then not working is stigmatized. Once again, see the difference in how we treat people?
Honestly, the way I see it, a lack of work is not, in and of itself, a bad state. It’s actually a great state. It’s the “bestest” state to be in. It’s freedom. And if you have the ability, ie, the money to enjoy it, as many children and retirees do, it’s great. it’s only miserable for the unemployed because we insist they must be miserable…to coerce them to work. It’s inflicted by our current social norms. And in a post work society, where everything is automated and we have the ability to just give everyone a check, such norms are no longer necessary and are harmful.
Social isolation, health, and other problems
Some people say work is good because it forces people to be social and regiments their life to make them healthier. This might be true in some cases. However, if humans are inherently social, socialness will…uh…find a way. I’m not very social and am somewhat isolated, but I still find ways have friends. And quite frankly, I don’t want to be forced to socialize with people I don’t want to get along with. I mean, how many people necessarily get along with coworkers? Not many. How many people can trust their coworkers? Not many. How many people form life bonds with coworkers? Not many. They’re just kinda people you tolerate in a lot of cases. You shouldn’t have to be forced to be with them. That’s benevolent paternalism again.
As for health, look, utilitarian wise, the health argument is a good one. Work may cause people to be healthier and live longer, since working a physical job will likely make you more fit than sitting around, but you have to ask, at what cost? Is it worth forcing people, putting them under intense stress, robbing them of their time, of their agency? Not necessarily. You have to give some people room to make their own choices. Sometimes freedom has more benefits than being forced to do something does. We don’t force people to not eat fast food or drink soda. Because we believe in freedom. Sometimes people need to choose for themselves, even if it leads to sub optimal outcomes at times. It’s good for the government to foster more freedom and security at times, but I don’t feel like it’s worth forcing people to work “for their own good”. I’m really resenting the benevolent paternalism the pro work do gooders want to force on people. Not to mention many jobs don’t really make people healthy. Some are very stressful, pay poorly, and involve sitting in front of a computer all day; all of these factors hurt health too, and are job inflicted.
"Society will collapse, people will die"
A lot of people also make the argument that if you give a man a fish you feed him for a day, if you teach a man to fish you feed them for their lives. They will also point out how the reason you don’t feed wild animals is that without that support, they will die. The argument here is that humans need work to survive because if society were ever to collapse, they wouldn’t know how to deal with it, and people will die.
Okay, but imagine this. Imagine society collapsed tomorrow. Imagine a solar flare or EMP knocks out our power grid. Imagine nuclear war or disease or zombie apocalypse destabilizes society. How many people would survive? Uh…not many. I’m sorry, but asking people “would you like fries with that” all day long isn’t going to help you. Being able to code in an age where computers no longer exist or are rare is not going to help you. The fact is, if you dropped most people in the middle of the woods these days and asked them to survive, many wouldn’t. People can’t live off the land. They cant protect themselves from wild animals. They can’t tell what plants are safe to eat and what are poisonous. The fact is, our modern society has already long left the state of nature, and if society were to collapse, all the work ethic in the world would not save them. Being able to survive in a modern capitalist society does not mean one is able to survive in nature. People are already too domesticated to go back to living how we lived and being able to survive.
Conclusion
I think I really countered an argument against work ethic as it exists fairly well here. The fact is, this idea that work is good for humans, in and of itself, sounds a lot like benevolent paternalism imposed on us for above, and in reality, may not even be very benevolent in some cases. It’s really this idea that can be traced back to Calvinism that work exists to save people, and without work, they will fall into sinfulness, or its modern equivalent, poor mental health. But as I discussed, the core issue surrounding mental health seems to come from the concept of anomie, that is, a mismatch between society’s expectations and its realities. Instead of trying to force the realities to match these expectations aren’t good to begin with, we should change society to match the realities.
In the future, when automation becomes more frequent, there’s going to be a debate over whether people should continue to work, or whether we give them an income and free them from the drudgery of work. I believe people should be freed in such a case, and I believe a lack of work should be destigmatized. I have nothing wrong with people who do want to work, but this idea that under such circumstances that everyone must work sounds like a load of benevolent paternalism to me. Even if there are, at times, some minor benefits from forcing people to work, does not mean they should be forced to do so for their own good. I believe freedom should take precedence.
No comments:
Post a Comment