Why do we assume everyone should be working?

The piece challenges the default economic view that everyone should be working, framing labor as a resource that can be over-exploited. It likens labor to water, implying that extracting it at maximum rate is not always beneficial. This perspective shifts the focus from maximizing employment to optimizing labor use based on productivity. Engineers should note that the underlying assumption about labor supply influences system design and resource planning.

It points out that employing individuals with low productivity can impose a net cost on the economy, especially as technology raises the minimum productivity threshold. The argument uses the example of negative oil prices to illustrate how markets can signal a desire to reduce supply. For engineers, this suggests that adding low-value human tasks to automated pipelines may be counter-productive, and that system designs should incorporate productivity thresholds.

The article references a study by Acemoglu and Restrepo from 2026, which provides empirical support that the universal-employment assumption has been detrimental for over forty years. It also notes that current tax and benefit structures embed this assumption, reinforcing labor demand regardless of economic efficiency. Engineers working on compensation or benefits platforms may need to accommodate policy shifts that decouple income support from employment status.

Adopting the view that some workers could be paid to stay out of the labor force would require redesigning hiring practices, training programs, and possibly creating new compensation mechanisms. The cost of such a shift includes developing metrics to assess productivity, investing in automation, and navigating existing legal frameworks. Systems that currently assume full employment would need to be re-engineered to handle variable labor participation without breaking functionality.

The argument has limits: it does not address sectors where human labor is indispensable or where productivity cannot be measured easily. Moreover, the feasibility of paying people to remain out of the labor force is constrained by current institutional capabilities. Engineers should therefore apply this insight selectively, focusing on areas where automation can replace low-productivity tasks without violating regulatory or ethical constraints.