“We should do away with the absolutely specious notion that everybody has to earn a living.” These are the words of R. Buckminster Fuller, who recognised something fundamentally flawed in the way society forces individuals to justify their existence through labour.

His argument challenges one of the most ingrained assumptions of modern life: the idea that every person must “earn” their right to be alive by working, often in jobs that serve little or no meaningful purpose.

At the heart of this critique is the realisation that, in an age of unprecedented technological advancement, it no longer makes sense for everyone to spend their lives working in jobs that contribute little to human flourishing.

Technology has the potential to meet the needs of society without the need for widespread, monotonous labour. The very notion that we need to work in order to “deserve” our survival not only devalues human life but also perpetuates systems that prioritise profit and control over true progress and well-being.

‘Earning a living’ has become a mechanism of control

The phrase “earning a living” implies something dark and insidious – that, by default, human beings do not deserve to live unless they can prove their worth through participation in the labour market.

James Ellars puts it succinctly: “The idea of having to ‘earn a living’ implies that, by default, you don’t actually deserve to be alive.” In this framework, individuals must constantly justify their existence by working, even if the work they perform contributes nothing meaningful to society. Who decides that your value as a human being is contingent upon your labour, and who benefits from this arrangement?

The answer is that this system primarily benefits those who control the means of production and the structures of power. By forcing individuals to participate in meaningless or redundant work, the system ensures that people are bound to the labour market, constantly serving the interests of the wealthy or powerful.

In essence, “earning a living” has become a mechanism of control – a way to ensure that people remain dependent on a system that cares more about profit and control than about human dignity or societal progress.

One of the clearest indicators of this flawed system is the existence of what anthropologist David Graeber coined “bullshit jobs”, which are jobs that contribute nothing of value to society – jobs whose disappearance would not be noticed, let alone mourned.

Graeber’s work reveals a striking truth: many people are trapped in jobs that serve no meaningful purpose, yet they must continue working in them to survive in a society that insists on tying human value to employment.

Rutger Bregman offers a useful illustration of this concept by comparing binmen and bankers. In the 1970s, New York’s garbage collectors went on strike, and, within a week, the city descended into chaos as rubbish piled up and public health deteriorated. When a similar strike occurred among bankers in Ireland, the result was starkly different: after six months of not working, nobody noticed. Bankers returned to their jobs but life continued as usual without them.

This contrast highlights an important truth: not all jobs are created equal, and many jobs exist purely to uphold systems of wealth and control, rather than to serve society’s needs.

Fuller’s observation that “one in 10,000 of us can make a technological breakthrough capable of supporting all the rest” speaks to the immense potential of technology to free us from this cycle of unnecessary labour. Modern advancements in automation and artificial intelligence have the potential to meet humanity’s basic needs – food, water, shelter and healthcare – without requiring everyone to spend their lives working.

And, yet, instead of embracing this possibility, society clings to the outdated notion that everyone must work to justify their existence.

In a world where technological breakthroughs could, in theory, allow people to live lives of meaning, creativity and freedom, the insistence on keeping everyone employed feels increasingly irrational.

Youths, as Fuller noted, are beginning to see through the illusion of “earning a living”, recognising it for the nonsense it is.

So why does this system persist? Part of the answer lies in power dynamics: the idea of having to work to live ensures that the majority of people remain dependent on the system, while a select few profit from it. By keeping people tied to unnecessary work, the system maintains control over them.

This is why, as Bregman and Graeber have pointed out, so many jobs are created that serve no real purpose – they exist to keep people occupied, to keep them from realising that the structure itself is arbitrary.

But what if we imagined a world in which this system was dismantled? What if we, as a society, recognised that human value is inherent and not tied to the work we do? What if technology was harnessed to meet our basic needs, freeing us from the endless cycle of meaningless labour?

The potential is there but it requires a radical rethinking of our values and the structures we’ve built around them.

The path forward begins by rejecting the idea that every person must work in order to survive.

It doesn’t matter if unemployment numbers are low if most people despise their work; employment per se is the wrong metric by which to judge the strength of the economy. The goal should not be full employment but, rather, full participation in society in ways that are meaningful and fulfilling.

This could mean a shift towards universal basic income, where people’s basic needs are met regardless of employment, allowing them to pursue creative, educational or communal activities that genuinely enrich human life. The technological advancements of our age offer us the tools to make this possible; now, we need the collective will to implement them.

Andrew Izzo Clarke is a junior associate at a local law firm.