Until that cultural pillar of hard work defining a person's character and place in God's kingdom goes away, we will be stuck with this idea that people are defined by their work.
There still needs to be some sort of incentive to actually do work. I'm sure most of these people in the article would rather be writing novels or creating art or something better than flipping burgers or the like.
What gives you more self-worth, learning a new programming language and completing a project in it, or sitting on the couch and watching TV?
I personally believe the ancients understood this, from the usual parables. Idle hands are of the devil, and lead you to fill your time with something. Most of the easy somethings are drinking, eating and junk entertainment.
Technology may give us less to do, but at the expense of less opportunities for developing self worth. Even some of the founding computer members understood this--Wiener, a member of the "Dream Machine" crew mentioned it in the book "Cybernetics".
Perhaps I may clarify the historical background of the present situation if I say that the first industrial revolution, the revolution of the “dark satanic mills,” was the devaluation of the human arm by the competition of machinery. . . . The modern industrial revolution [i.e., the computer revolution] is similarly bound to devalue the human brain. . . . The answer, of course, is to have a society based on human values other than buying and selling. To arrive at this society, we need a good deal of planning and a good deal of struggle. . . . (Wiener, 1948, pp. 37-38, bracketed words added)
For example, learning how to play an instrument, picking up painting, attempting to master chess, or Go, are all things that you could do instead of working and are still personally enriching, if not financially enriching. They may not boost the economy directly but they will make the culture a better place nonetheless. There is a lot of untapped potential that could be explored if people have a guaranteed basic income and didn't have to work that dead-end, minimum-wage job.
Of course we still need a lot of human labour to make society run. I mean who wants to do menial labour, or plough snow at 4am so the morning commute isn't a complete disaster.
So I don't have an answer, I just think you're falsely equating "not working" with "idle hands".
I can't comment on the "God's grace" part, but hard work is indeed centrally important to the character of a person and society as a whole.
That's a fact. Ignore it at your peril.
Personally, I would value smart and effective work over hard work any day. If we get to the point where the most effective work is also fun and enjoyable rather than a burden, we'll be better off for it.
What you're talking about is an effort by people to be more inclusive by communicating things about themselves that they want others to be aware of. I can understand how this can be awkward and annoying, but it also has positive effects of bringing out these kinds of unstated assumptions like the idea of a work ethic.
If you look at history, groups tended to be more cohesive and share cultural values. This made it easy for most people to relate to each other because they could rely on certain unstated agreements. Now that we have more of an interconnected world, it's important to figure out how we can live together despite different understandings and identities. Not everyone is on board with this kind of diversity, but it's hard to see how we can move forward without finding some way to connect to people who aren't like us, and so far one of the solutions put forward is to over-communicate.
"Generally understood" - what? It is still a fringe belief. Please don't post things that are not true as facts.
Why are we forcing people to work? Because it cost money--ie. other people's time and energy--to feed, cloth, and take care of people.
Two reasons.
1. to scare people who are still required - do this or be destitute like them
2. to stop people sitting around and concluding that the system stinks, that people shouldn't be living in luxury because they inherited wealth and that we shouldn't have to pay high rent to exist
I disagree. You can make yourself valuable in many ways, not tied to any job you're prospecting to win.
Making yourself a valuable person to society is where everyone unemployed should be. That's how you win the respect of people who work. That's what it's about. Now how one does that could be in many forms. And it's not necessarily something that needs to take up more than a couple hours a day even. in fact you find that people who work not only put in their 8 hours, they follow that up with volunteering, speaking at engagements, mentoring, helping others at church, all kinds of things.
There's the heart of the issue though. When you're on food stamps you're not thinking of creative ways to make yourself valuable because you don't have time or energy. You're thinking about how to feed your children and family. You're working two menial jobs that suck up any time and affect your mental health, thus further degrading any possibility of you finding some creative avenue to make yourself valuable.
Most people do not have the opportunity to make themselves valuable.
It's generally understood that at this point in history most people shouldn't really have to work at all. The whole point of technology is to make living easier for everyone. The root of this problem, as far as I can understand it, is misallocation of capital, not of "jobs". The efficiency of the free market is telling the labor market, "hey, you don't need to do this job anymore." So why are we still forcing these people to work? They should be allocated the capital gains reaped from market efficiencies that are a result of technological innovations.