Many people are anxious about work. Fear of unemployment and under-employment is widespread, especially amongst young people. Youth unemployment has skyrocketed since the financial crisis of 2008 and is at scandalous levels in many countries.

Then there's job insecurity. Many are anxious about the future, not just those with insecure employment contracts or the self-employed, but also those with regular jobs who wonder how long they can cope with the stress of it all, all the ‘bullshit’. Discontent with work is rife. This much we can agree on: we are in the midst of a malaise around work.

But how should we respond to this malaise?

A common response is the post-work view. According to the defenders of post-work, the whole system of work is a fraud and needs a complete overhaul. We have been duped into thinking that work is good for us, but all it gives us is pain and dishonour. The work ethic, the idea that we should love our work and the injunction always to work harder, is a sham. What we should really be striving for is freedom from work; release from this ethic. This is best achieved in two ways. Firstly, by getting robots to do all the unpleasant work humans have traditionally done. Secondly, by introducing a basic income that is obligation-free in relation to work. With a UBI in place, no one would be forced to work or need have a bad conscience about not working. As the work ethic withers, irrational guilt about not working will disappear too.

___

"Hegel thought that work was one sphere of modern society in which social freedom could be achieved through activity involving mutual recognition."

___

The post-work view certainly has its appeal. But is it the right response to our malaise around work? I have my doubts.

First, while the post-work view rightly alerts us to the inevitability of technological change, it has a too rosy view of the impact new technology has on work and an unrealistic view of what technology on its own can achieve.