Why do we assume everyone should be working?

In the realm of economics, many people assume that everyone should be contributing to the workforce. A friend recently expressed this sentiment, stating, "Of course, everyone should be working, I'd like to be able to buy more stuff." This statement, however, hides an underlying assumption that may not always hold true in the world of economics. The idea that we should always utilize our resources, including labor, to their fullest extent is not a given.

Labor, much like water, is a resource that should be managed carefully. We do not drain the oceans as enthusiastically as we seek to employ people, looking for a job for every possible individual. This implicit assumption drives our decision-making, leading politicians to search for job-creating policies rather than considering alternatives that could alleviate poverty. The economy would not need to offer someone a job if it were capable of providing for them without relying on wages.

This situation raises an important question: is it ever beneficial for the economy to pay someone to stay out of the labor force? While it may seem counterintuitive, there are cases where the economy may prefer to have individuals not working. A prime example is the case of negative oil prices. In situations like these, the economy has the power to set prices negatively to indicate that it does not require more of a particular resource at that time.

Our current systems of taxes and benefits operate under the assumption that everyone should be working, which may not be the most effective approach. According to the findings of Acemoglu and Restrepo in 2026, this assumption has been detrimental to our economy for the past four decades. My own research on this topic has culminated in a theory on how wages are set, which is detailed in my article available at https://wilsoniumite.com/2026/08/03/working-on-economics-with-fable-5/.