At a macro level, labor has benefited alongside productivity—automation and globalization—in the 19th and 20th centuries. So the question becomes how much society should insulate individuals from economic change.
There are no guarantees that one's current skillset will always be relevant, one's current marginal value will increase, or that economic demand will remain in the same geography. Automation and globalization exacerbates these issues, but they're not new issues: textile workers in the 1800s destroyed machinery over concerns it would reduce the need for their labor.
You have no unalienable right to keep your job.
So I take issue with your hypothesis inherent in (a) and (b) that some people "can't work" because the economy has shifted. Opportunity and economic need for labor still exists; people need to adapt.
But there is an issue here, and the solution is (re)skilling. We need programs that help and support people of all ages to gain the skills they need to get a job in high-demand fields. A basic income might help, too—e.g., to avoid the catch-22 of needing money to move to a new town to get a job to get money.
If economic demand is dropping precipitously in certain locations, intervention action is needed in the form of state or county-level policy to retain or attract labor supply and/or economic demand.
If benefits programs are more desirable than an alternative of working a low-wage job, then "refusing to work" is logical. If waste and abuse is egregious, then the programs should be changed. But at the same time, we need to get comfortable with the fact that some people will choose to do the bare minimum.
There are no guarantees that one's current skillset will always be relevant, one's current marginal value will increase, or that economic demand will remain in the same geography. Automation and globalization exacerbates these issues, but they're not new issues: textile workers in the 1800s destroyed machinery over concerns it would reduce the need for their labor.
You have no unalienable right to keep your job.
So I take issue with your hypothesis inherent in (a) and (b) that some people "can't work" because the economy has shifted. Opportunity and economic need for labor still exists; people need to adapt.
But there is an issue here, and the solution is (re)skilling. We need programs that help and support people of all ages to gain the skills they need to get a job in high-demand fields. A basic income might help, too—e.g., to avoid the catch-22 of needing money to move to a new town to get a job to get money.
If economic demand is dropping precipitously in certain locations, intervention action is needed in the form of state or county-level policy to retain or attract labor supply and/or economic demand.
If benefits programs are more desirable than an alternative of working a low-wage job, then "refusing to work" is logical. If waste and abuse is egregious, then the programs should be changed. But at the same time, we need to get comfortable with the fact that some people will choose to do the bare minimum.