Would you work if you didn’t have to?

One of the most common assumptions underlying the work disincentive is that people only work because they have to. Guaranteeing financial security without work, even at a basic level, is therefore expected to cause a labour shortage. Of course, empirical evidence doesn’t back this up – there is much more to motivation than simple economic necessity.

In addition to experiments carried out in the 1960s and 1970s, one way that social scientists research motivation and employment commitment is through the “lottery question.” This involves asking people about a hypothetical scenario in which they win the lottery: would they continue to work, even if they didn’t have to? The majority of people say yes, suggesting a high degree of non-financial employment commitment. People find paid employment to be meaningful, even when they don’t depend on its income.

Research on the behaviour of actual lottery winners backs this hypothetical scenario up. Many lottery winners do continue to engage in some kind of employment.

However, delving deeper provides an interesting insight. If people are asked whether they would continue working at their present job, a majority say no. People long for meaning in work, and they aren’t necessarily finding it in their present job.

Those who are more likely to say they would stay in their present job have jobs that provide them with status and meaning. Those who are less likely to voluntarily stay tend to be in monotonous, low status positions. The question then should be: Is it ethical to force those who find no meaning in work to stay in their jobs because of the threat of poverty and economic insecurity?

For more on lottery studies, check out Roland Paulsen’s article Economically Forced to Work: A Critical Reconsideration of the Lottery Question in Basic Income Studies.