Hacker News Reader

Comment by waxymonkeyfrog | Hacker News Reader

Sorry I didn't mean to suggest that at all. When I wrote "the ills of unemployment go well beyond the loss of income" that was my way of saying loss of income is the first-order outcome of losing a job, but there are more complicated effects to consider.

The reason I focus on the other effects is that, in deciding how government/culture might rearrange itself to replace work, I think it's critical to see that work is about more than money--and the benefit of work is about more than a paycheck. It is about esteem, flow, purpose, community, a sense of meaningfulness in life, and it's not clear to me that all of those things comes with a monthly government check; so it's useful to think of ways we could replace these values in the future.

View on HN

The article flat out assumes that "If John Russo is right, then saving work is more important than saving any particular job. Industriousness has served as America’s unofficial religion since its founding. The sanctity and preeminence of work lie at the heart of the country’s politics, economics, and social interactions.", and that "Most people want to work, and are miserable when they cannot."

Put succinctly, the article poses as its fundamental thesis that unemployment itself leads to social degradation. But I could find no actual supporting evidence for that claim.

The Youngstown example is just as likely a posterchild for the alternative theory: the dangers of unmitigated poverty.

Now, I grant you, social pressures likely lead people to feel shame and so forth in the face of unemployment. But that just means a cultural shift away from the idolization of work is necessary, not that we must find some way to employ those folks who might truly be unemployable.

Unemployment clearly leads to degradation, both of cities (Youngstown) and of individuals.

The question I think we're debating is whether the flow of causality goes unemployment->poverty->social degradation (this is your case, I think) or whether unemployment leads to social degradation more directly, even among people who don't currently need money (so, removing the variable of poverty) because it's a terrible blow to esteem, purpose, and community. I think there is a lot of evidence for this claim; see the section Paradox of Leisure.

I think there is a lot of evidence for this claim; see the section Paradox of Leisure.

I totally disagree.

The problem is that society, as it's structured today, does little to support the unemployed to provide the kind of social contact and meaningful activity that would offset depression and isolation.

In addition, there is a social expectation foisted upon the unemployed that they must become employed, and that expectation creates pressure, depression, and further isolation.

The fundamental issue is that we, as a society, have decided that unless you're working you're idle, and if you're idle you're useless.

Consider, there are many many retirees who manage just fine. Why? Because there's a social network put in place to support retirees... activity centers, social groups, travel clubs, etc. And a social expectation that retirees will specifically be idle!

Similar support mechanisms do not exist for the unemployed today because the unemployed are viewed as failures. Unemployment is not a valid life choice, and therefore society does nothing to support them.

This fundamentally comes down to the western idolization of work. Address that and I believe you'll address many of the psychological harms supposedly caused by a lack of employment.

If you think we should provide support mechanisms like activity centers for the unemployed, I think you'll love the fifth section of the piece where I say we should provide support mechanisms like activity centers for the unemployed!

I'm okay with disagreeing over the centrality of work. Some very smart people think that maintaining structured busy-ness is very important psychologically. Some people disagree. But it seems to me that we agree on many of the solutions, including a basic income and activity centers.

The issue IMO is mixing active and inactive yet potential population. There will be a pressure toward the inactive to contribute back. Those who accept to 'suffer' work (because you have to deal with unknowns and undesired workloads, so you may suffer) will rarely have the generosity to give to those who don't. And 'normally' inactives will feel bad about that too, unless they're cornered by society (bad access to learning and or new jobs).

>The reason I focus on the other effects is that, in deciding how government/culture might rearrange itself to replace work, I think it's critical to see that work is about more than money--and the benefit of work is about more than a paycheck. It is about esteem, purpose, community, a sense of meaningfulness in life, and it's not clear to me that all of those things comes with a monthly government check; so it's useful to think of ways we could replace these values in the future.

It is also about actually accomplishing something that needed doing. This is precisely why we want it to disappear: unfilled needs are bad.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com