I believe they can be just as productive in a different capacity.
1. [Cynically] the unemployed are productive, as a discipline/threat to the employed -- "do as we tell you or you will end up unemployed" [with long list of implicit penalties].
2. The whole idea that humans must work to live is a weird cognitive bias in western political discourse. If you look at actual employment rates they max out around 40% -- children and pensioners don't have paid employment, homemakers aren't paid for their labour, many folks are only partially employed. Yet our whole dialog around how to structure society is based on the axiomatic supposition that full employment is some sort of religious directive.
Wouldn't we be better off looking for more culturally nuanced ways to measure human value than mere fiscal utility over time?
1. [Cynically] the unemployed are productive, as a discipline/threat to the employed -- "do as we tell you or you will end up unemployed" [with long list of implicit penalties].
2. The whole idea that humans must work to live is a weird cognitive bias in western political discourse. If you look at actual employment rates they max out around 40% -- children and pensioners don't have paid employment, homemakers aren't paid for their labour, many folks are only partially employed. Yet our whole dialog around how to structure society is based on the axiomatic supposition that full employment is some sort of religious directive.
Wouldn't we be better off looking for more culturally nuanced ways to measure human value than mere fiscal utility over time?