The article you attached is beneath your analysis. A Berliner freelancer whingeing about basic income has no place in this discussion because the question "what do you do" is answered many ways, with the unspoken infinitive phrase a multiple choice question at the root of philosophy: "What do you do..." - "for fun?" - "for money?" - "with your time?" - "for a living?" - "when you aren't standing here in front of me obviously not doing that thing I'm asking about?" I, personally, have never felt that the phrase - "to justify your existence, freeloader" ...has ever nonverbally answered this question, even at my most self-defensive and self-loathing. There are conversations and situations where one's occupation is being asked. Most of them are statistical or procedural. For anybody else, you can choose to answer "I wait tables" or "I'm working on a novel." But that choice is yours, not theirs. It's something I think people learn much too late in life - the question is a clumsy "who are you?" but the answer is all yours. Do you want to define yourself by your job? That's fine - encouraged, in fact, if you enjoy your job and are good at it. In an ideal world we all adore that thing that keeps a roof over our heads. If you prefer to define yourself by an aspiration that's fine, too - nobody will truly believe that you're a DJ until you truly believe that you're a DJ. The worst thing you can do, I think, is get pissed off at the question. It isn't loaded, it isn't a veiled threat, it isn't an evaluation of your worth. It's an attempt at opening a dialogue and if simply hearing the question pisses you off, then what you're showing the world is that you're pissed off. Your definition of "work" is better suited by "make." A student makes a body of knowledge. An artist makes paintings. A bartender makes a lot of drinks. A competitive surfer makes his body and his skillset into a better tool for surfing. You can just kill time, too, though. There's a time and a place for both and I agree - when you're out of balance it feels bad. Julia Phillips relates a Yiddish proverb in her bridge-burning memoir of Hollywood ("You'll Never Eat Lunch In This Town Again"). She said "People regard money three ways: as blood, for nourishment; as semen, for creating; and as shit, for throwing away." I think "work" is the same.
I think some very select sentences from his blog triggered a winding thought process that ended up pretty far from the original post. Ah well. I do like this. And I like using "make" over "work" as work is too closely tied to pay and hatred & disgruntlement. It's funny how negative of a connotation "work" has, yet most of the people I know don't experience work as 100%, or even 50%, negative."People regard money three ways: as blood, for nourishment; as semen, for creating; and as shit, for throwing away."
It's a word with way too much baggage. There's a flip side to that, too, though - our relationship with "work" is every bit as transmutable as "do." The trick is getting the other side to agree with your position and every now and then you'll run across some putz advocating basic income without so much as paying lip service to the sausage-making of that level of welfare.
Sometimes I feel like the only person around here who truly believes that far too large a percentage of the population would be sufficiently satisfied with rotting away on a sofa watching Jersey Shore reruns literally forever. However, it's a testament to the optimism of Hubski's users that they believe larger numbers of people would contribute more to society in a basic income system. Naive, I think, but admirable....every now and then you'll run across some putz advocating basic income without so much as paying lip service to the sausage-making of that level of welfare.