The indignity of no work

By R.A. | LONDON

RECENT discussion over the labour-supply effects of Obamacare has touched off a debate over the usefulness of the dignity of work as a social value. Leading Republicans argue that policies that discourage work and therefore signal that work is not important should be strongly resisted. Paul Krugman insists that it is impossible to maintain the illusion of the dignity of all work when financiers bring home incomes vastly larger than those earned by the typical worker, all while adding dubious value to the economy. Kevin Drum is sympathetic to Mr Krugman's arguments, but says Democrats should nonetheless avoid the temptation to play down the importance of the dignity of work:

I really hate to see liberals disparage the value of work, even if it's only implicit, as it is here. Even people who hate their jobs take satisfaction in the knowledge that they're paying their way and providing for their families. People who lose their jobs usually report intense stress and feelings of inadequacy even if money per se isn't an imminent problem (perhaps because a spouse works, perhaps because they're drawing an unemployment check). Most people want to work, and most people also want to believe that their fellow citizens are working. It's part of the social contract. As corrosive as inequality can be, a sense of other people living off the dole can be equally corrosive.

A world in which a healthy adult has the reasonable expectation of earning a decent living while working full-time at a market wage is absolutely a world in which the dignity of work is a useful social value to cultivate. In a world in which that is not a reasonable expectation, the dignity of work can be a harmful concept. Society would effectively be kicking people while they are down; in addition to the hardship involved in un- or underemployment and poverty society would demand that the workless individual feel shame at his or her inability to function as a valued member of society.

Looking around, it seems difficult to argue that most of those struggling to get by without adequate work or on meagre wages are shiftless, or simply fail to appreciate the psychic benefits of working for a living. Maybe involuntary underwork is just a symptom of the current, post-crisis recovery, and it is worth protecting the dignity of work as a social norm since eventually labour markets will be back to normal.

But maybe we will not be returning to normal. Maybe technological change will force a large share of the population to get by with too little to live on—or too little to live on relative to average earnings to be politically sustainable. Maybe reduced labour demand can then be accommodated by reducing workweeks and topping up wages, allowing society to retain the dignity of work as a useful concept. Yet even in that case the amount of leisure time will grow. And even work sharing may leave many people without paying work.

In that case, the dignity of work may cease to be a particularly useful social concept, and something will be needed to replace it. Society will have to come up with new means to set useful incentives for people in a world in which we do not allocate purchasing power through market wages. We might talk instead about the dignity of endeavour for its own sake, or the dignity of contribution to society. Such phrases may seem to have the makings of a social infrastructure for socialism. Indeed they do, for a world in which machines can do much of the work will need to become more socialistic if it is not to become intolerably unequal.

The dignity of endeavour for its own sake could be a useful way to encourage people to use masses of leisure time in socially beneficial ways. That could mean operating a local business that customers enjoy but which only manages to cover its costs. It could be producing artisanal or craft goods. It could be practicing citizen journalism: spending time covering local government doings and then writing up one's findings on a free blog. It could be volunteering to work at an animal shelter. Not everyone will opt to use leisure in such ways; many will play video games or drink. That's their right.

But the broader point is that those now questioning the utility or relevance of the concept of the dignity of work are responding to reality. They are not so much pushing people away from work as acknowledging that work has moved away from people. Economies that have relied on market wages to provide incentive structures for people for centuries (with a dash of dignity of work and other social norms thrown in) are going to have to change.