为什么我们默认每个人都应该工作?
Why do we assume everyone should be working?

原始链接: https://wilsoniumite.com/2026/08/10/why-do-we-assume-everyone-should-be-working/

“每个人都应致力于实现经济繁荣最大化”这一普遍信念是一个错误的假设。尽管劳动力常被视为必须随时加以利用的资源,但经济现实并非如此。正如我们不会耗尽所有自然资源一样,在某些情况下,充分就业反而可能阻碍而非促进经济发展。 由于我们当前的制度将生存与工资完全挂钩,社会迫使个人进入劳动力市场,而不论其生产贡献如何。然而,随着技术进步,经济生产力的门槛也在提高,这可能导致某些劳动投入的成本高于其创造的价值。在这种情况下,如果让某些人获得支持而不必进入劳动力市场,避免进行低效就业,经济从技术上讲反而可能获益更多。 如果我们固守“全民就业总是最优”的教条,就可能因不必要的劳动力而“扼杀”经济。借鉴阿西莫格鲁(Acemoglu)和雷斯特雷波(Restrepo)的研究,作者认为这种对工资分配制度的强制依赖几十年来一直适得其反。我们必须超越“每个人都需要工作”这一假设,认识到现代经济的健康发展可能需要除当前工资中心模式之外的系统性替代方案。

Hacker News 上的讨论“为什么我们认为每个人都应该工作?”聚焦于生存劳动之必要性与后稀缺时代可能性之间的矛盾。 原文认为,社会对全民就业的施压可能适得其反,特别是在某些人的培训和雇佣成本超过其所创造的经济价值时。批评者警告称,这种言论带有危险的历史意识形态色彩;而另一些人则认为,“工作”对于心理健康和社会融入至关重要。 许多评论者指出,目前“工作”被视为获取资源的某种武断且强制性的要求。参与者讨论了全民基本收入(UBI)或类似的社会安全网能否提供替代方案,但对通货膨胀、潜在的社会动荡以及形成永久性下层阶级的风险仍存忧虑。 归根结底,这场对话突显了两个阵营之间日益扩大的分歧:一方认为当前的“为生存而工作”的资本主义模式已经破产;另一方则担心,在没有成熟且稳定的体系支持下放弃该模式,会导致经济崩溃或威权控制。目前各方尚未达成共识,这反映出在人类贡献的价值这一议题上,人们存在着根深蒂固的文化和意识形态分歧。
相关文章

原文

I was talking to a friend of mine and I asked this. She said “of course everyone should be working, I mean, I’d like to be able to buy more stuff”

In that statement though there really is a non obvious implied logic. So the next question: does economics support that statement always? That if we want more stuff, and better lives, everyone should be working harder? No, only sometimes; in economics, utilizing a resource to it’s fullest at all times is not a given. Labor is a resource, like water, and yet we do not drain the oceans with the same fervour as we employ people, trying to find a job for every drop.

When we have implicit assumptions such as these, it drives our decision-making. A politician should not need to hunt for job creating policies, and yet they do because admittedly the alternative is poverty. Not because the economy couldn’t provide for that person, but because the only way for the economy to provide for them is through the wage.

Here is a very simple statement which may sound a bit mean: it is entirely feasible that giving a job to a “stupid” person, regardless of how much we try and train them, might cost the economy more than we benefit, in aggregate.

Disagree all you want on the definition of “stupid”, but you cannot deny that such a bar exists, and notably, that that bar moves up, and only up, as technology improves. What that means is, there may well be cases where the economy would actually like to pay someone to stay out of the labor force, but right now, it can’t. Remember when oil prices went negative? It’s hard to understand how that can happen, but at least for oil, the economy has the power to set that price negative to essentially say “hey, I don’t want more of this right now”.1

We have to stop assuming that the economy wants everyone to be working. Otherwise, we may be silently strangling it with labor. Our current systems of taxes and benefits almost entirely assume we need everyone. By the findings of Acemoglu and Restrepo 2026, there’s already good evidence that for the past 40 something years, this assumption has been hurting us.

I’ve worked on this idea for a couple years now, and somehow, it managed to culminate in a theory of how wages are set. You can read about it here:

https://wilsoniumite.com/2026/08/03/working-on-economics-with-fable-5/

联系我们 contact @ memedata.com