"We have to have incentives to get ordinary, nice people to do what adults think they ought to do and would make them happier in the long run." This smacks of paternalism to me. The idea here is that while people would choose to be "lazy," ie to pursue leisure over toil, actually their jobs make them happier than they would be if they were just given a UBI and could do whatever they want. This is an empirical question and one that can't be resolved with polls of people saying they wouldn't quit their jobs if they won the lottery. The question is: do they keep their jobs when they win the lottery? And when they do, it's probably because they already have work that they find intrinsically satisfying. Do most people who do underpaid hard labor continue to do it if they win the lottery? Do we think they they would be "happier" if they were forced to continue to do said underpaid hard labor for the rest of their lives?
I reject the idea that jobs bring a more fulfilling life than "laziness." For some people this may be true. For others, who hate their jobs, the freedom to quit and pursue their hobbies (things that don't necessarily have market value) would be a blessing. A mistake here is seeing a binary between "jobs" and "laziness." In fact, you can work hard without having a job. You can volunteer. You can paint or write. You can go to the gym. Personally I would love a life that I could just spend reading, exercising, writing, gardening, helping friends, and making love. I think a lot of people might feel the same way and telling them that we need to force them into the labor force because, while they THINK they want this life of leisure, actually their jobs will bring them greater fulfillment strikes me as the same kind of "false consciousness" argument that is so ridiculed when it is expressed by Marxists. If we think that having too many people living lives of leisure is unsustainable and they need to be compelled to enter the labor force through coercion (work or starve) so that work can get done, then fine. But don't add insult to injury by telling them that actually it's good for them and they like it and their clearly expressed preference to be paid not to work is a misjudgment of their own best interests.
"We have to have incentives to get ordinary, nice people to do what adults think they ought to do and would make them happier in the long run." This smacks of paternalism to me. The idea here is that while people would choose to be "lazy," ie to pursue leisure over toil, actually their jobs make them happier than they would be if they were just given a UBI and could do whatever they want. This is an empirical question and one that can't be resolved with polls of people saying they wouldn't quit their jobs if they won the lottery. The question is: do they keep their jobs when they win the lottery? And when they do, it's probably because they already have work that they find intrinsically satisfying. Do most people who do underpaid hard labor continue to do it if they win the lottery? Do we think they they would be "happier" if they were forced to continue to do said underpaid hard labor for the rest of their lives?
I reject the idea that jobs bring a more fulfilling life than "laziness." For some people this may be true. For others, who hate their jobs, the freedom to quit and pursue their hobbies (things that don't necessarily have market value) would be a blessing. A mistake here is seeing a binary between "jobs" and "laziness." In fact, you can work hard without having a job. You can volunteer. You can paint or write. You can go to the gym. Personally I would love a life that I could just spend reading, exercising, writing, gardening, helping friends, and making love. I think a lot of people might feel the same way and telling them that we need to force them into the labor force because, while they THINK they want this life of leisure, actually their jobs will bring them greater fulfillment strikes me as the same kind of "false consciousness" argument that is so ridiculed when it is expressed by Marxists. If we think that having too many people living lives of leisure is unsustainable and they need to be compelled to enter the labor force through coercion (work or starve) so that work can get done, then fine. But don't add insult to injury by telling them that actually it's good for them and they like it and their clearly expressed preference to be paid not to work is a misjudgment of their own best interests.