EDIT: Replace ‘every human in the workforce’ with ‘most people’. I agree efficiency has not been gained equally across all professions.
In: Economics
One could argue that there is indeed less work to go around now than there used to be. The big labor problem in the first few millennia of civilization was finding enough people to do all the work. This was mostly because that work was grueling agricultural labor where one person could barely support themselves, let alone support a class of people who didn’t participate in that labor. It’s only been in the last century that the big labor problem was instead finding enough work for all the people.
And there are a few reasons why people still want to work a lot even though civilization could probably survive if they worked less. First, work is an intrinsic good for some people. It makes them feel engaged, productive, and/or fulfilled. Some people work until they die. Others “retire” but continue to do volunteer work. Second, work is still the main way to access the things we need to survive/thrive. Not everyone starts life with generational wealth, but everyone starts life with time. They can sell some of their time as work and so have money to buy the stuff they want. In a society without work, someone with only time to offer will be quite poor.
It’s possible to build a post-work society where everybody shares in the wealth. This is the main idea behind current programs like food stamps and social security and proposed future programs like birth trusts and universal basic income. The transition from here to there will be messy because we’ll have to constantly keep track of how much work actually needs doing and calibrate the programs as necessary. We’ll also have to get past ancient ideas of societal fairness if we’re ever going to get to a place where some people can forego work without stigma.
Latest Answers