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 上题为“我们为何默认每个人都应该工作?”的讨论,探讨了围绕劳动的文化与经济压力。 这场辩论的核心在于:工作的必要性究竟是由稀缺性驱动的永恒经济现实,还是由政治体制所维系的社会建构。许多参与者认为,由于资源有限,经济需要全员参与以防止“搭便车”行为,这便形成了社会对每个人必须通过劳动来维持生存的期望。 反之,另一些人对此提出质疑,认为强制所有人进入劳动力市场的驱动力已过时。现行制度的批评者指出了“狗屁工作”、自动化开启后稀缺性时代(post-scarcity era)的潜力,以及全民基本收入(UBI)作为将生存与就业脱钩手段的可行性。 讨论中一个具有争议的点在于,作者暗示某些人可能在经济上是“无产出的”。这一观点引发了强烈抵制,许多评论者指出,此类言论在历史上往往是去人性化和威权政策的前兆。归根结底,该讨论反映了经济效率需求与希望社会重视人的尊严而非强制劳动这一愿望之间的深刻矛盾。
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