There are two different conceptions we use to talk about work. One sees the work we do as a form of contribution to society. The other positions work as a prized good that we strive to attain. Without much thought we often mix and match these moral languages, creating a confusion regarding the nature of labor in our society.

In this article I will begin by first laying out these two different conceptions. Then we shall look at how these different conceptions each produced different judgments regarding unemployment.

I think that it is important to begin untangling our views regarding work. To look and speak clearly about what it is we do all day. What are the principles that form the basis of our ideas on work. These issues are increasingly relevant in a world where work is going through a major upheaval. Individuals feeling dejected by long bouts of unemployment. Recent college grads fearing that their degrees are soon to be rendered worthless. There is much tension and confusion about the future of work, and whether a world where paid employment becomes increasingly scarce would be a utopia or a dystopia.

Work-As-Contribution

I start with the "work-as-contribution" conceptions since I believe that is the more familiar conception of the two. We are steeped in this conception from an early age. That work is a duty; it is the way we contribute to society that we get so much from.

The work as contribution models goes something like this: society is a joint endeavor where we each contribute our labor and in return we receive a share of the rewards. Society is conceptualized as a cooperative scheme in which all give a hand and share the burdens of doing what is required to uphold society and keep it functioning.

Contributing one's labor into this cooperative scheme is not really a choice. Work serves as a primary civic obligation that is required of each citizen. It is the basis by which one is integrated into society and by which one can make demands on the public shared resources. Without putting in your fair share of work, one is shirking their civic obligation to contribute.

Therefore, demands on public resources, primarily forms of social welfare, are contingent on the fact that individuals are fulfilling their end of the bargain by contributing their labor to the cooperative scheme.

This civic obligation for work is rooted in the principle of reciprocity. Our social duty to work is based on the fact that it will not be fair if we were only to take without giving anything back. So long as we make demands and benefit from the overall economic structure, we are expected to contribute our fair share back into the system.

The fact that "those who surf all day off Malibu must find a way to support themselves and would not be entitled to public funds," is viewed as a common-sense truism.

The other, and contradictory, conception by which we regard work is work-as-prize conception. While very different from the work-as-contribution conception, it too should sound immediately recognizable.

Under this conception, society and the principle of reciprocity fade into the background and what is left is the individual and their solitary relationship to the market. Here, work is not viewed as a social duty, but rather a competitive and sought-after good that one needs to work hard to attain.

As opposed to seeing work as civic duty, here work is an object of individual attainment. The work one attains is directly proportional to their individual efforts and abilities. To secure a "good job" one needs to work hard for it.

Here labor loses its property of social contribution, and transforms into a commodity with a price that can be bought and sold on the market. The market not only commoditizes people, human beings, as it transforms them into labor. But jobs themselves turn into commodities in and of themselves. They are sought after, and pursued just as any other good, distributed by the laws of supply and demand.

Work is transformed from a public contribution to a personal responsibility. In order to get a job one must study, learn skills, network. It is thus the duty of the individuals to put in the efforts to make themselves employable, to be seen as valuable to potential employers.

Here, there is no civic duty to fulfill. There isn't even much by way of a civic union. Can’t find work? That's a you problem. Here society is indifferent regarding your contribution. Your work is not even seen as a contribution at all. You do not labor for the benefit of society, you do so for yourself, your paycheck, your rewards. It is as if society doesn't really need you, and it is up to the individual to outwit and outmaneuver his peers is securing the limited good that is work.

Can't find work? Too bad. Should have studied harder, worked harder, picked up different skills. You got what you deserve.

Just as securing a desirable job is the result of one's personal efforts, so is the inability of successfully integrating into the labor market a reflection on the individual and evidence of their inadequacy. Can't find work? Too bad. Should have studied harder, worked harder, picked up different skills. You got what you deserve.

To test the assumptions of the reader consider the following: A tech influencer in a recent video lamented a recent type of complaint that he is hearing from his audience:.

If you are sitting and saying "I cant get a job, the whole market is fucked. I applied to 500 companies and didn't get a single response. And your definition of applying, is finding a job listing and sending a pdf? Of course you are not going to get hired. There are people trying harder than you

If reading this made you wince at its unfairness and absurdity, you are instinctively closer to the work-as-contribution conception. If, on the other hand, it struck you as a broadly accurate description of how things are, then you tend to see work as a prize that must be earned.

Unemployment

These two conceptions are not just a difference in rhetoric. They are fundamentally different moral frameworks that underlie our assumptions regarding the nature of work. Nowhere is this difference more apparent than in unemployment.

Let's begin with the work-as-contribution model. As a result of the reciprocity principle, each has a duty to contribute their labor to society, those who do not uphold their end of this civic bargain are morally culpable, and may even be denied social aid.

One's individual state of mind regarding work makes a big difference. If an individual is able to work but is willingly shrinking their social obligation, then they are morally condemned, and have effectively violated the principle of reciprocity. On the other hand, if they are in practice looking for work, then this makes an important difference in how they are regarded under the contribution model.

On this account, an individual's state of mind, that is their willingness to work and efforts to find work, is not viewed in the same light as the willfully unemployed. The former is still inside the social union of social cooperation as they do not disavow their social obligations to work.

Evidence of this is the common work-test requirements in many welfare regimes in which eligibility for unemployment benefits is contingent on actively looking for work. Thus, society is willing to lend a helping hand to those who want to work, but through no fault of their own are temporarily struggling.

One's desire to participate and contribute to society makes all the difference. There is a joint compact between the individual and society that they will do their part, and in turn society will ensure their efforts are rewarded and have their back in times of difficulties. One's willingness to work is the basis for solidarity.

Now let's move to the work-as-prize conception and see how unemployment is regarded in this different moral light. In the previous conception there was a relationship between the individuals and society. Both have to uphold their part. The individual is willing to participate and not shirk their duties, but in turn, society is responsible for keeping up its end of the bargain. Ensuring that there is indeed suitable employment by which individuals can contribute to or a social safety net in their absence.

But under the prize conception, society is nowhere to be found. All that is left is the solitary individual. It doesn't really make a difference if one is willing or unwilling to work. One's mental state is of little consequence to the laws of supply and demand. The defining factor is personal responsibility. Society absolves itself of any obligation of reciprocity and leaves individuals to fend for themselves. In this world, there is really no such thing as unwilling unemployment. One's will is irrelevant. Want a job? Offer more value to employers than competing applicants. That's it.

If one is not willing to put in the hard work required to attain employment, be that education, or learning in demand skills, then they are simply not doing all that they can to find work and make themselves attractive candidates.

There is no difference between those who have a hand in their misfortune, and those who are reacting to social circumstances larger than their own. The language of personal responsibility makes no such distinction. There are no exceptions.

Automation

The difference in regard to unemployment under these two conceptions is of consequence, since it seems that a lot more unemployment is just over the horizon.

I am wary of making any decisive claims regarding AI-induced unemployment. For the purposes of this article, let's take a moderate approach. That all-powerful AGI is not coming in 18 months, but AI automation will continue at a steady pace and reach a point that is about as capable as the average worker in some industries.

It is clear that with only this modest assumption, we are due for a major disruption to the labor market. A machine that does bookkeeping, online marketing or coding at the level of half of the workforce will generate widescale unemployment.

Should this reduction in the demand for human labor prove inevitable, as I believe it will, our only recourse is to fundamentally reexamine the assumptions and conceptions we hold about work and its place in society.

If we do not shift over to a more contributive conception of work, we run the risk of faulting individuals for this structurally induced unemployment. We cannot on the one hand keep telling people to just "try harder" and simultaneously reduce the number of jobs that are available to fill. There will come a point where these contradictions will no longer hold under the pressures of reality and there will be a backlash.

We cannot on the one hand keep telling people to just "try harder" and simultaneously reduce the number of jobs that are available to fill.

The prevailing moral conception of work today is that of work-as-prize. That it is up to individuals to improve and adapt and make themselves desirable to employers. This may be understandable in times of plenty, but in the face of real world economic turbulence, it becomes an impediment.

The work-as-prize conception will fundamentally obstruct our capacity to respond to this widescale economic disruption. Unless we can relieve individuals of the weight of misplaced personal responsibility, the individuals and the economy alike will crack under the pressure.

We must begin to weaken the stranglehold of the personal responsibility narrative in the face of contracting employment. Society cannot on one hand unleash a technology capable of human replacement, and on the other moralize and blame individuals that their jobs were automated away.

Failing to transition to a conception of work as a social contribution, and to reduce the burden of responsibility on individuals will bring about despair and backlash.

Work as a Collective Need

Times of crisis call for novel solutions. Solutions we cannot find when we are stuck in an individualized conception of jobs as personal prizes. These two conflicting moral languages presented here regarding work are not the same. Confusing them and overplaying the burden of personal responsibility in a moment that calls for something else, will not serve us well.

By adopting the work-as-contribution conception we are better equipped to respond to this employment turbulence. It is only under such a conception that we can see the role of human labor for what it is: the fulfillment of a collective need. And if that labor can increasingly be done by technology, that need not come at the expense of human livelihoods. If anything, it should be a happy day when the burden of social labor is lifted and returned to individuals as freedom.

It is only by focusing on society as a joint cooperative scheme, rather than as disjointed individuals each scrambling for their share, that we can adapt to what is coming. Who knows, we might even prosper.