So...I ended up getting in an argument with a Bernie bro about Yang/UBI, and while much of the discussion came down to the same drivel I've rebutted again and again on this sub, one source used was a post attacking Matt Yglesias for previous posts criticizing the idea of a jobs guarantee and seeing it as potentially being coercive and abusive. His posts were blurbs, but apparently one author Pavlina Tcherneva basically took them seriously and wrote a largely caustic article attacking UBI and advocating for a jobs guarantee. And since these were used against me in debate, I felt like it would be good to write an article about it since I'm generally speaking anti JG and pro UBI. A lot of her post was ideological circlejerking, but in standard fashion, so will mine be. After all, I have an ideological dog in this fight too.
Slate’s Matt Yglesias is out with another caricature of post on the Job Guarantee (JG) and, guess what? He still doesn’t like what he sees. He’s all for guaranteeing income to people who can’t find jobs, but he’s opposed to making receipt of that money “conditional on performing make-work labor for the government.”
Yeah as you can tell she starts out snarky and sarcastic. never mind Yglesias was pretty light in criticizing the topic, with one whole post simply being acknowledging that MMT orthodoxy seems hardcore on the JG proposal, and the other simply suggesting the UBI is a much more direct approach to ending poverty, and is less open to abuse (for example Yglesias mentioned a "job guarantee" in fighting dangerous California wildfires). As someone who identifies as an indepentarian, and supports the right to say no, not just to any job, but all jobs, I feel like the UBI is the superior approach to solving poverty.
As one of the leading proponents of the JG, let me say this for the nth time: THE JOB GUARANTEE IS NOT ‘MAKE-WORK.’ This is not a reaction to Yglesias but a core principle of the earliest literature on the Job Guarantee (e.g., here, here and here). There is no way that anyone familiar with even a sliver of the vast collection of books, articles, essays, working papers, policy briefs and blog posts on the JG could, in good faith, continue to claim that the JG is “make-work.”
I mean to some extent it is. While job guarantees CAN do useful things, like infrastructure projects, after a while, you're just making up things for people to do because ultimately you believe that people should have to suffer for their existence. JG proponents can't stand to think about a world in which we aren't expected to toil all day every day, and as such they're literally creating work out of thin air for people to do. Sometimes this can be useful work. I mean, a reason I TOLERATED Bernie's green new deal previously is I understand for the next decade his idea would be useful. But after that, it would quickly become pork.
So much of our economy, from the tax preparation services, to the healthcare insurance industry, is just make work. But we can't get rid of that work because "but but, we would put people out of the job." preserving jobs is a key proponent of our economic policy, with a lot of government agencies in particular being bloated because cuts would put people out of the job. To make an argument leftists would be sympathetic toward, think defense contractors and the military industrial complex. Part of the reason we make so many weapons isn't because we need them, but because we have given people jobs doing so, and getting rid of such jobs would be unpopular. In a sense, our near $800 billion budget is a jobs program. And we could argue that those arms are useful to. They protect us from Russia and China, and Ukraine is doing a good job fighting off the Ruskies with our surplus military weapons. But the question is, should we be employing people simply in making arms we don't necessarily need? A leftist would probably say no. Well, congratulations. Now you understand the logic against job guarantees. Jobs in the government can provide useful things. But the real question is, do those things necessarily have to be done? In the short term, a JG would do useful things. In the long term, it would not. It would lead to bloat just like the military industrial complex. Just like the medical insurance industry and all of those administrative jobs that wouldn't need to exist under single payer. Just like the tax industry. We could have the government file taxes for us and not have to deal with the nonsense we all just went through in the past month. But then someone would be out of work, and that's bad. The logic behind preserving jobs leads to all kinds of bone headed decisions like this.
And now to get into her 16 reasons why she thinks a JG is better.
1. Yglesias may not realize it, but all serious academic support for BIG is based on the idea that many people will quit working (this is considered desirable in order to eliminate bad jobs and ultimately ‘decommodify’ labor; e.g. here and here ). So the goal is to reduce the supply of labor and reduce production.
Oh noes, the horror. You see, this is what most UBI vs JG arguments come down to. Pure ideological disagreements. With JG proponents basically being jobists. And this is basically why this whole post sounds like a circlejerk.
I'm going to be honest, i wouldn't agree with every aspect of the premise proposed, but I would agree with the gist of it. I mean, for reference, I wouldn't say I'm necessarily pro reducing production. I mean we could debate the exact tradeoff between reducing work time and productivity, and I would say I'm GENERALLY adverse to our current "work to increase GDP at all costs" mindset that we currently have. But I'm not explicitly ANTI production. I'm kind of neutral toward it.
But I would generally say that I am for freeing people from labor, which seems to be what her sources cited seem to indicate. Both of the sources she cited link to Phillippe Van Parijs related work, and Van Parijs is a "real libertarian" who is a close ideological cousin to my own outlook on the world. But yeah. I'm for people quitting their jobs. I'm for freeing people from labor. And generally speaking, JG advocates support continuing a system of wage slavery as I see it, which is why I see the JG as so disagreeable. We have a perfect excuse and reason to reduce how much we work, and JG proponents just want to keep that cycle of maximizing work and GDP growth at all costs going.
As I said, I'm not really ANTI work to the extent that I want to rob people of the ability to work if they want it. I simply support freedom to choose. And I do expect most people to choose to work in some capacity and for work reductions to, at first, be minimal. And that's kind of the thing. I'm actually fairly "moderate" in my anti work mentality. I see a lot of benefits of work and modern society. I just believe we need a sense of balance, and moderation, and the best way to move in that direction is to make work more voluntary so we can work less. From there, I suggest we let the market decide and go from there. If people choose to continue to work, that's fine, but if not, then I don't think we should force them.
2. JG provides a “good job” alternative to people who work in “bad jobs”. When private employers want them back, they have to provide at least the same or better living wage-benefit package and work conditions offered in the JG. JG sets the labor standard.
Who determines what jobs are good? Karl Widerquist often would say something like "don't tell oppressed or disadvantaged people what jobs are good for them, let them decide for themselves". Yes, a JG can set some minimum standard. but if those jobs suck, then you're not making people better off. UBI gives people the ability to sit on the couch and NOT work, while still giving plenty of incentive TO work. UBI would provide a much stronger assurance against bad jobs, forcing employers to compete with people staying home. So they would need to provide better pay and working conditions. A JG does this somewhat, but while still preserving wage slavery. Which means its effects are more limited and the idea feels dystopian to me.
3. Under BIG, production drops, consumption rises, and so do prices. Suddenly, the value of the BIG grant has been eroded. Great success: the poor are still poor.
We currently have a $72k GDP per capita. If we saw a roughly 1/8 reduction in production, we would have a $63k GDP per capita. While a recession would happen, and you would see some inflation, no one would be poor. And if we implemented the UBI slowly, the brunt of those impacts would be minimized as growth that happens anyway would offset it. This is kind of strawmanny.
Like, I don't actually think we should see much of a reduction in work effort, or much of an increase in consumption. It would still happen, but the effects, if UBI is done properly, would be mild. It would be FAR less severe than the 2020 COVID recession, in the worst case scenario, and I could see it not being an issue at all if it were done slowly enough.
4. Under JG, employment rises, socially useful production rises, and (as we have argued many times) some of that production is dedicated to the benefit of the poor, providing goods and services at the local level that the private sector has not provided, and thus it absorbs part of the wage. In other words, both supply and demand rise.
Yes, employment rises, socially useful production CAN rise (not saying it WILL but it CAN) and while it might lead to more wealth, again, maybe higher GDP isn't necessarily what we need? Again, we have $72k GDP per capita. We're plenty rich in America. I would argue we don't really NEED more GDP growth and more GDP growth wouldn't get us out of poverty. Because poverty is in essence a distribution issue and UBI would redistribute income/wealth from the top to the bottom to ensure our needs are bet.
Yes, if your primary concern is more growth, a JG is better. I'm arguing maybe growth isn't the end all be all of life. Maybe we should have more work life balance. Maybe we should have a better distribution of goods and services. Maybe these are more important than just endlessly grinding for higher numbers on paper.
5. Coupled with its countercyclical mechanism, JG is an inflation stabilizer (not an inflation generator, like BIG). We’ve modeled this many times (see here, here, here). Inflation from other sources is, of course, possible (runaway bank lending, speculation, oil shocks etc.—all are separate issues.)
6. BIG is not countercyclical. It’s universal, unconditional, but does not fluctuate with the business cycle. JG is a direct response to recessions and expansions.
I mean, basically what you're more or less saying is this. You make more jobs during recessions to stabilize the economy, and make less during good times. That's fine if you're Keynesian, you know, government steps in during bad times, and backs off during good times. But honestly? A UBI would stabilize the economy in bad times too as people would still have that to rely on without the government lifting a finger. Remember covid and how millions were out of work and how the government barely did anything to help anyone because republicans were in charge? Remember the left sputtering on arguing for a temporary UBI because we were in a situation where we COULDN'T employ people because contagious diseases? UBI would've been there for people from day 1 during COVID. It would've stabilized the economy in a way that a JG model could not, and it rapidly would've stepped in to be an important buffer against poverty.
And during times like these, if we had a UBI, all we would really need to do is reduce the number of jobs available by raising interest rates via the federal reserve. While production and GDP would admittedly be lower than under the JG, maybe ever growing levels of GDP aren't really central to peoples' well being anyway any more. I'd argue GDP's biggest relevance is in waging war. It's nice to have a high GDP because that means you can field a high military budget. That means you can stay ahead of Russia and China. But beyond that, I think beyond a certain point, higher levels of GDP are meaningless. What good is $72k GDP when people are paying so much for say, housing? Or healthcare? Do we exist for the economy, or does the economy exist for us? Again, I support human centered capitalism. The economy exists for us. We're not slaves to it. But JG and the jobist mentality behind it seeks to make us slaves to the economy, rather than the economy work for us.
7. There is no mechanism by which BIG can ensure full employment over the short or long run. Only the JG can.
Again, maybe I don't value full employment over all else. I support ending poverty, but also freeing people of wage slavery. Full employment is a policy choice and it's the stark ideological divide I have with the traditional labor centric left.
8. In short, BIG doesn’t deal with price (or currency) stability, useful output, or any of the negative externalities from unemployment.
I mean not having money is an externality from unemployment. Beyond that, UBI isn't intended to deal with price or currency stability. That's the fed's job. Raise interest rates when needed to keep inflation in check, lower them to encourage more job creation to minimize unemployment. And while UBI would act as a permanent stimulus of sorts, it doesn't really change the core idea. It just changes what the ideal interest rates actually are.
What a JG does on the other hand is when jobs disappear, a JG provides more jobs to compensate. It gives people an income by putting them to work, and that spurs on economic development directly as goods and services are being made, and people have money to spend. UBI tends to give people money with less work getting done, leading to somewhat lower GDP, but if the difference is say, $63k per capita vs $72k, is that really such a huge deal?
Like that's what it ultimately comes down to. Would you prefer to keep maximizing GDP while forcing people into wage slavery, or have somewhat less GDP but have people be freer and more able to participate as they want? I'd rather have $63k with a more just economy under UBI than $72k with an economy under wage slavery.
Because I know by 2030 given growth happens either way, we'll be up to $72k GDP then. But then the JG proponent would say, we could have, say, $84k or something. Sure. We could. But again, is it worth it?
The point is, I don't want to keep going like we are and in 100 years have a $300k GDP (remember how I did those projections?) and still be enslaved to working all the time when we could have say, $260k GDP and be free to say no.
Higher numbers isn't everything. Leisure and freedom have their own inherent worth, and the JG proponent doesn't understand this.
9. As Amartya Sen taught us, poverty is not just a function of lack of adequate income. Providing income alone does not eliminate poverty.
Now she's starting to sound like Joe Biden. "A job isn't just about a paycheck, it's about dignity."
Uh, poverty is about a lack of paycheck. Poverty is by definition solved by giving people money. You can claim there's some moral worth of a job, but honestly, I say we let people decide that. Not moral do gooders telling me what's best for me without even asking me.
10. The poor and the unemployed want to work (here, here). And as my work on Argentina showed (9m14s), receiving income is the fifth reason why the poor wanted to work! Why do BIG advocates presume to know what’s better for the poor than the poor themselves? BIG does little for those who want to work.
Oh give me a break. The obnoxious moralizing on this one. Counter question, why do JG advocates presume to speak for me and claim I WANT to work? I DONT want to work, honestly. And I dont think a lot of people actually do. Here's the thing. Regardless of whatever work this lady has done on the subject, a big thing we like to ignore in society is that WORKING ISN'T A CHOICE. I mean, it is, but it isn't. We have a system where you can say no, but no one does, because the consequences are poverty and homelessness. And what are the results of that? Well, just think about your last job interview. How much did you BS your prospective employer trying to act enthusiastic about how you wanted to work. Do you really feel passionate about shoes where you want to work in footlocker? Does the idea of flipping burgers for 40 hours a week make you happy and feel a sense of pride? Some work does have some mental health benefits. I don't doubt that. But for a lot of people, a lot of people saying they want to work is done under duress. They have to say that. Because if they won't they won't get the job. They wont get that income. So, a lot of people have to pretend it's not about the income....when yeah, it's about the income. If it wasn't about the income people would continue doing it without being paid. And there are some things people do for free. And you know what? They can choose to do those things even if they get a UBI. UBI would allow people to do what they WANT to do. because their livelihood isn't tied to a job. A JG still ties your livelihood to that job, and as such will continue to be coercive.
Also, i find it funny she cites her own work on freaking JACOBIN of all places. Yeah, you're really objective, lady /s. This is just leftist circlejerking.
11. There is almost a ‘neoclassical market equilibrating assumption’ behind most BIG analysis that says: “as long as people have cash, the market will magically provide the goods for them, allow them to acquire assets, provide them with the freedom to do what they please, etc. etc.” If the market hasn’t solved these problems now, why would it do so just because people get cash? All structures that marginalize, reduce opportunities, and discriminate remain. JG is not a panacea for all these problems, but it deals with one crucial and systemic aspect of marginalization – the absence of guaranteed decent work.
Because this is my own ideological assumption, but in my own analysis, the root evil of capitalism IS wage slavery. Cash would not only compensate people for the market's inadequacies, but give them power to bargain in the market in ways that don't exist now. The problem is the market does coerce people to work, while simultaenously not giving them enough cash to live on. UBI would clearly solve this.
12. Amartya Sen also taught us that what matters is not just freedom, but substantive freedom. That is, policy has to 1) recognize what individuals themselves want and value; 2) it must provide these opportunities; and 3) it must remove obstacles from taking advantage of these opportunities.
13. The JG does precisely that: recognizes many people want paid work, provides the job opportunity, and removes obstacles from taking the opportunity by targeting the jobs to the communities, and providing the very services that one might need in order to take care of these opportunities (education, transportation, care etc., etc.).
Cool, freedom to, not just freedom from, right? Well, what if I desire freedom FROM work? What if I reject this whole rat race altogether? Sure, some people desire freedom to work. But honestly, I wouldn't stop them, and if anything removing the people who dont wanna be there from the market would allow the people who do want to be there to find jobs more easily.
Also, this might be unpopular with JG proponents, but I dont believe people should be guaranteed a JOB. The logistics of doing so is difficult as you gotta match the job with the people in the locations they live, and you also gotta ensure that the job is suitable to the person, etc. And for all we know, there might not be any useful job that they would want to do. Honestly, I support people looking for work that they want, and if they find it they find it, and if they don't they don't. UBI would likely give them a cushion that would allow them more choice and flexibility in the market, allowing them to say, move more easily. Or maybe pursue alternative careers not necessarily available in a jobist paradigm. Wanna start that youtube channel? Or that art project? But you won't be able to support yourself on it alone? UBI would HELP you.
You might argue, well, if those jobs arent "useful" to society, why do them? We need meat packers and freight unloaders and burger flippers. Who cares about your vanity art project? I mean, sure, but at that point let's face it that you wanna coerce people into slavery while telling people they want it all along. If you really want that to get done, you can PAY people for it. Thats kind of a weird thing this author argues. People wouldnt work, but people WANT to work. It's a double edged argument where their early points about lower productivity are offset by their later points about lack of opportunity. And it's laced with this benevolent paternalism rooted in the protestant work ethic of "we have to force these people to work for their own good."
If people dont want to work, and productivity lowers, pay your darned employees better and give them better working conditions. If they do want to work and cant find it, let them find their way doing art projects or whatever. if some rich fricker can sell monkey pictures for tens of thousands of dollars, why can't poor people make their own art and sell it?
Like really, this moralizing this person does is just so obnoxious to me.
14. BIG may lull the recipients into a false sense of security. Once the BIG grant proves inadequate to liberate the poor from their poverty, and the poor decide to search for better paying jobs and opportunities, they will not be there. Just like they aren’t now. As research has shown the mark of unemployment is devastating and unemployment breeds unemployability.
Who is to say that it would be inadequate to liberate the poor from poverty? Kinda loaded when their definition of poverty a la point 9 sounds like having a job is part of escaping poverty?
Anyway, as someone who exists in this kind of environment, as a college grad who never found a job post college because poor opportunities? Yeah, I'm screwed. And I don't really want a JG to "fix" my life. I don't want some government job building roads in the hot sun or freezing cold winter. I want a UBI so I can live comfortably without being forced to do a job I don't actually want to do. And maybe I would rather write posts about UBI all day than actually do a make work job, because my sense of purpose is related to my own UBI advocacy.
Like really. people can make their own jobs in this new economy. Start a YT channel, make a blog, do art, whatever. Come up with the next brilliant idea. How many books have been written by people who had the luxury to not be forced to join the working class? How much human potential is suppressed because our einsteins are stuck asking if we want fries with that?
Like...okay, unemployment breeds unemployability. Well...what if people dont truly desire employment? While a JG could give them a step into employment, if people don't really want it, then why force it?
And let's ask another question. Maybe people who aren't constantly employed are unemployable because employers want nice loyal worker bees who will put up with their abuse? That seems to be the mentality between not hiring workers like that. Because maybe they'll end up doing what I did and understand that work actually is an abusive and exploitative institution akin to slavery? Employers don't want smart people to think for themselves. They want submissive people who will say "yes sir/maam" and when told to jump, will ask "how high" rather than saying "you know what? I'm not gonna jump for you at all."
If UBI would reduce the number of people working voluntarily, then I say let those people leave. They often times don't WANT to be there. And you know what? Employers can pay people to make it worth their while to do those jobs. If you can walk off the job at any time, employers would have an incentive to work with their employees, meet them half way, give them good working conditions and wages. Because they don't HAVE to be there. They WANT to be there.
Like, again, everything about this person's perspective assumes jobs are good, and she moralizes and lectures and condescends to us about poor us who dont have jobs. Uh...maybe at the end of the day jobs are hell, and people like me are the only ones honest enough to admit it? Someone has to. because we have such a strong culture around work and not ever admitting that maybe we dont want to do these things, that it takes someone like me to break that illusion.
15. Again, many BIG bloggers are not familiar with even the basic BIG literature. There is such a thing called ‘participation income’ and ‘civic minimum’ in serious scholarly work (Atkison 1995 and White 2003, respectively)—an idea that society is built on the principle of reciprocation. Society provides you with a basic income; you reciprocate by participating in socially-productive activities. This is exactly what the JG does. No matter what Yglesias says, it is not based on the coercion principle of workfare, but rather on the principle of participation.
Okay, this person can kindly screw off at this point. The obnoxious moralizing was bad enough but is she seriously calling us ignorant? Anyone who surfs r/basicincome for more than a week would know we're constantly INUNDATED with weird ideas like this. Like "what if we had a UBI, but we made people do a bare minimum work to claim it?" Then it's not a UBI, because it's not universal, and it's conditional.
The fact is, UBI proponents don't like these ideas, because we're not jobists. This person is OBSESSED with forcing people to work and do labor and making it MANDATORY. I'm familiar with reciprocity. I've debated social democrats and know many of them against it because ERMAHGERD PEOPLE MIGHT CHOOSE NOT TO WORK. Let them. Again, I'm more in the Van Parijs/Widerquist vein of people shouldn't be forced to do it. And you could argue, it's not a principle of coercion based on workfare, but rather the principle of participation, but this is just a useless word salad. It's like the south claiming the civil war was about states rights. States rights to what? Same thing here. Principle to participate in...what?
Basicallythey're trying to force people to work. They're framing it differently, but let's face it. Their big thing in this whole thing is at the end of the day, they think forcing people to work is a good thing. That's what it comes down to. Sothey're basically lecturing us about how we can make people work.
WE DON'T WANT TO DO THAT. THAT'S WHAT SEPARATES US FROM THEM.
Like, if we agreed maximizing employment was a good thing, we should maximize GDP and have everyone working 40 hours as a moral requirement for their existence, yeah, your JG ideas are pretty based. But we don't think that. On principle. Rather than work making us free (cough), we want to be free of work.
16. I find it ironic that we have to debate each other. BIG and JG stand on much the same principles. Let policy provide an opportunity to all to perform socially useful activities on the ‘participation principle’ through the JG, while supporting those who cannot (the young, retired, disabled, with onerous care burden) and we have a stronger, more stable economy that creates socially useful activities that serve the public purpose.
Okay. I'm going to be kind of double handed with this one.
On the one hand, I KIND of agree. I mean, given the system we have now, both JG and UBI people have ideas about guaranteed SOMETHING. Some means of subsistence guaranteed. As opposed to our free market mentality of "oh, we're gonna force you to work, but we're not gonna guarantee that you can find work, or that work pays well"....I mean, we both want to find ways to make this economy just. Your idea is one of giving people guaranteed employment at a reasonable minimum wage to ensure everyone has some minimum standard of employment, and mine is giving people money, regardless of employment status, to ensure peoples' needs are met without work.
This, in my opinion, the issue I wish we WOULD debate centrally in society. They can be one party touting the dignity of work and a good old fashioned job, and mine is the party of well jobs aren't the answer and we need to decouple work and income.
But let's be honest, beyond that, this person can screw off with the condescension. Don't tell me what my ideas SHOULD be. I really dislike that this person is trying to push a UBI position into their stupid "participation income" idea and then say "but we both want the same thing." NO WE DONT. I literally view a JG as slavery. I view capitalism as it exists as slavery. I am opposed to wage slavery. I seek to free people from the tyrannies of work, while this person seeks to continue that enslavement under a new paradigm. it's like the big casino being replaced with the big cooperative in Widerquist's big casino essay.
The fact is, you don't get to tell me what is good for me. I want to be able to pick whatever job i want, or no job at all. I dont wanna be forced to state some crappy state job, as the alternative to some crappy free market job.
Here's a better idea. Instead of participation income, why don't THEY support a "universal wage". This is a wage we give to everyone unconditionally, and we let people decide how and whether they want to contribute in the first place. Oh....they don't like that? They think im strawmanning their ideas and making a mockery of them? Well, welcome to the club.
We don't want the same thing. And while I respect the proponents of JG for proposing SOME ideas that make us better off as a society (there's a reason I would've supported Bernie in 2020 despite my misgivings), let's be honest, we're not ideologically the same, we shouldn't pretend to be, and our ideas are diametrically opposed on an ideological level.
Yes, sending a check to people is not as “messy,” but let’s stop pretending that it’s a panacea for the fundamental problem of economic insecurity.
But it is. Let's stop pretending your moralizing doesn't come with a whopping side of "I want to coerce people to work via propertylessness".
Again, I kind of have a begrudging respect for JG people. I think compared to the status quo, they're at least thinking about how to improve capitalism and peoples' lives. But the moralizing here and assumptions about how jobs are good and we should all be forced to do them are obnoxious, and this whole article has been offputting. Like, it's just dripping with condescension and trying to tell us what's good for us without letting us decide what's good for us. If we want to work, we'll try to find a job. We don't need one guaranteed to us, and then be forced to do it. I'd rather have a society where I'm allowed to live as I want, than one where I'm forced to live according to someone else telling me what's good for me. JG proponents do that way too much and it's annoying. They remind me of the protestant work ethic people who are like "well, we know you don't want to work, but we're going to force you for your own good." I HATE that level of benevolent paternalism. it feels like gaslighting in way. Like I'm being told what's good for me and I'm being pressured to go along with it than being allowed to decide for myself.
Again, I don't wish to deny anyone the opportunity to work if they want it. There's a lot of socially useful work out there to be done. And I do believe most people would like to participate in such work to some degree. But I say we need to let THEM decide that. Rather than just forcing people to take crappy government jobs they hate for their own good.
I feel like we live in a society that's very mentally ill. We all pretend like we all like to work and everything is fine, but I think at the end of the day many people don't actually like working but can't admit it for fear of social disapproval or sanctions against their means of making a living as they do. So they do this fake thing of pretending to like work, while insisting everyone has to work, because if they don't, they get angry and bitter and the real them comes out: "why do I have to work when they don't?" So, we all kind of hide behind these facades of pretending to like working when we hate it, while simultaneously insisting that we all have to work, because it isn't unfair to us and our suffering if we don't.
But that kind of mentality is exactly how we end up with the insanity of pushing for full employment, and job guarantees and blah blah blah. It really is an authoritarian mindset based on a sense of self loathing and bitterness of the idea of someone else being able to not work.
I want a system where you CAN choose not to work? And if you legitimately choose to, go for it. But if you don't that's okay too.
I mean I actually see a parallel between people who choose to be parents and childfree people. having a kid IS a choice. But a lot of parents will keep telling themselves it's great and the best thing in the world despite being miserable. So they keep trying to force their childfree peers to have kids in this weird "join in on the misery" mindset. And when they dont want to, they're often told they're selfish and make themselves our to be martyrs. I see it as this self loathing and hatred of how one's life is, turned into this weird toxic positivity because they can't express their misery in socially acceptable ways. So they're like this is great, this is the best thing ever, join me, and then they hate and loathe those who are like "no thanks, we're good."
Jobism is a similar kind of disease in our society. And the fact is the bitter miserable people insist everyone has to work because it isn't fair to them if they don't. So they do this weird toxic positivity thing of "oh work is so good for you, dont you want to do this?" combined with this intense hatred and misery against anyone who would choose not to.
That's what's going on at the center of this person's mindset, and those who think like this. In reality they can't stand the idea that people would dare choose a different decision than them, so they want to make the system in a way that coerces us into the system without a choice.
Yeah, I'm just gonna call that out and reject it.
