I get that this is not a plausible hypothetical. So no need to point that out.
In this society you do not have to work to live. You don’t even have to have a reason to not work. If all you want to do all day is drink beer and play video games; so be it.
You will be given a humble, well kept place to live. Food, clothing, health care and free public transportation.
However, if you want more than just the basics in life, you’re going to have to work. Like a house, cars, vacations, etc…
What percentage of people would work in this society?
Keep in mind the housing is nice, it’s not dilapidated or anything like that.
I think I put it at 70%. Probably go up with each passing generation.
You should read the Culture novels by Iain M. Banks. In that sci-fi book series people live in a post scarcity society and can do pretty much anything they can want. But some do still work and some (the people the books follow for the story) are agents from the Special Circumstances group who take on all sorts of dangerous and exciting missions.
I suspect no one would willingly be an accountant or secretary or garbage collector anymore but I’d think lots of people would take up arts and/or crafts of all sorts (music and theater and movies in particular). Maybe explorers if there was still something to explore. Sports too. What other work could a person do that wasn’t done better by the super-AI (or whatever) that was getting everything done?
I think at least 60% would. It would be considered somewhat sneeringly inferior to be living ‘on the dole’ in this society. But many workers would also take sabbaticals often in between jobs - “funemployment.”
That’s the thing though. Everything changes and men needing to provide is not really a thing anymore. Sure, some may want some super extravagant residence might be more desirable but assuming everyone lives in comfort and most time is spent out-and-about a guy who works is not really a thing.
Some men/women might set themselves apart by being a sports star or famous actor or musician…things the AI (or whatever) can’t really supplant. Painter, sculptor too. I imagine someone who made handmade furniture might be popular.
Agree w @Whack-a-Mole. Working would be at least as much of an attractiveness killer as it would be a gain. Remember that every woman would be getting the same stipend and residence credits and what not as every man. She has no necessary interest in a “provider”. Especially if we assume that whatever optional work is available isn’t full of gender-based wage discrimination.
Here’s a real-world example:
I’m recently retired at the typical age here in the USA. And well-off enough that I have all I need and a decent fraction of what I want; zero effort required. I am a living example of your hypothetical post-scarcity citizen. As are millions of other comfortable US retirees.
I’m also single. And generally actively looking for a GF. Because I am recently retired, my age range of interest includes both retired women and not-yet-retired women. The not-yet-retired have the advantage of being younger and having an income of their own. But I’m far more interested in a retiree who has the time to share with me that I have to share with them, rather than dating someone who’s of necessity giving most of their waking hours to their job. The job is a huge detractor that even a significant age gap in my favor can’t overcome.
Once age is decoupled from working as in the OP’s hypothetical it becomes a no brainer. Only people who live to work will be willing to associate with other people who work. The freetime people will only want to associate with the freetime people.
Especially if the economic benefits to working are small. If everyone working derives only a small hourly wage on the scale of what’s provided by the society to everyone gratis that would be a strong discourager to working. Conversely, if all jobs were high wage jobs and a few hours a week would double your standard of living, well that’d be a very different situation and society.
My take is the OP is assuming much more the former: from an economic perspective almost all of these available jobs would be much more labors of love than labors rewarding money-lust.
But it’s not just about the actual finances of it. It’s probably more psychological. Many women - even women who entirely financially self-sufficient - are attracted to men who are viewed as ambitious go-getters. A slacker who lives on the UBI dole isn’t going to be admired as ambitious.
I’d agree with this but in this hypothetical everyone is on the dole. Some few will stand out but most will not and the chance any given woman can snag one of the ambitious ones is up there with how many women in the US thought snagging Michael Jordan was a reasonable possibility.
Humans are by nature competitive. Material attainment is part of that competition. If the minimum received in welfare, universal basic income or whatever else you want to call it increases, then yes the number of people willing to accept the minimum will increase. However, people will still want to be able to go out to shows and tell their friends about it, wear nice clothes, have nice houses, throw dinner parties, etc. If money making opportunities are available that offer the opportunity to acquire significantly more than the minimum, then I think a lot of people would take those opportunities. My guess: 45% taking the minimum and 55% working.
I think most able-bodied people would work at least part time – 90% or more. I think most people would get bored, and be willing to “sacrifice” some time and effort both to do something besides vegetating and to earn some additional privileges/amenities.
I think the OP needs to be more clear on where on this spectrum we are to answer the question.
On the low side we have people who are basically on the bare minimum of state sponsored welfare. They live in really shitty apartments in crime ridden areas and can barely feed themselves.
On the other end we have a society like I mentioned above in the Culture novels. Anyone can have almost anything. There are limits, of course, but no one really wants for anything. Some few can have more but that is very rare.
The OP suggested you can play video games all day and drink beer. So, definitely above the bottom line but also far from the ideal. Somewhere in the middle.
Is the person playing video games in a cube and using a shared bathroom but has all the booze they want? Or do they have a decent apartment to do the same?
I’d move it back to retirees as the closest example we have today of post-scarcity living. How many able-bodied retirees take jobs who don’t need them to afford what they think of as an adequate lifestyle?
Agree again w @Whack-a-Mole. I read the OP as his UBI being at least as good a lifestyle as the US median wage is today.
Maybe the OP @Grrr can come back and talk about whether it’s a life of 3BR houses for all with bread and circuses and new iPads every couple of years and a new car every 5, or is it portable tents and gruel and sometimes some firewood to warm the gruel?
Hugh difference in the individual incentives to working in those two scenarios. And that’s before we consider any social incentives. Like whether chicks dig workers or dig guys w lots of time time to play.
I pictured it as those living on the dole would be put up in apartment complexes.
The number of rooms would depend on how many people are in your immediate family.
Single or a couple without children would get a one bedroom. Maybe 700 to 800 square feet.
Groceries would be anything you can get at your typical chain grocery store. Including alcohol. (The cheap stuff. Rare wines or high-end wines or spirits would not be included)
Maybe an annual cash allowance for stuff like TVs or phones. It wouldn’t be much though.
So living the working poor lifestyle of a present day Walmart checker or basic restaurant worker. Got it.
Assuming all the rest of the occupational choices from Walmart checker on up to thoracic surgeon are still out there and pay about what they do now, I could see the non-working fully supported underclass settling at ~50%.
For sure levels of education and the availability of quality education would have a lot to do with how many people, which people, and in which geographical areas, chose the UBI track versus the working track.
Places with little economic activity and pitiful schools might be 80% UBI. Think Rust Belt mini-cities of 200K or the fading small-town 500-1K population farming communities of the Great Plains. Lotta ways for those to turn into sinkholes of sloth and despair, albeit adequately fed despair.
Unless the UBI system had some sort of moving allowance to help transport people from where there’s nearly no alternative to living purely on UBI to places where better social examples are common, the working economy is dynamic enough to absorb more willing workers, and the jobs pay enough that the return per labor hour is seen as attractive to all but the most lazy MJ-addled workers.
I agree with @LSLGuy in his assessment. I might bump it up to 65-70%.
Contrary to popular belief most people work and want to work. It is the awful jobs no one wants (think repetitive, brain-dead jobs for starters…some others too).
For all the wailing by republicans about “welfare queens” the US has had close to full employment for decades. There is no such thing as 0% unemployment (people get sick or injured or are between jobs and so on) but the US has been and remains at close to full-employment (which does not count under-employment but that is a different discussion).
So yeah…people will definitely work to improve their lot in life if they can. There will always be those few who can not or will not but they are a small percentage.
I think that most people would work less, people would not work jobs they hate because the alternative is starvation and homelessness.
But people would get more education, they’d spend more time with friends and family, they’d have more time to create.
Some would sit on their asses and do nothing, but I think the vast majority would use the freedom to discover their real passions, find ways of contributing to society in some way that is far more valuable than being a fry cook.