(Me? I'd finish off my existing more-for-money-than-for-love contracts, because I owe my customers. (I get paid a huge deposit in advance.) Then I'd get a lot more picky about what projects I tackled going forward; more willing to tackle not-obviously-profitable ones and less willing to do uninteresting stuff that merely puts bread on the table. Oh, and I'd hire a full-time copy-editor/proofreader, and PA to handle my expenses and travel arrangements. Then I'd move out of my apartment for 3 months and get it thoroughly remodelled, from the plasterwork up, because it's overdue to be rewired, could use a modern heating system, and I might as well redecorate while I'm about it. But apart from that, not a huge amount would change ...)

Isn't that a reason in and of itself to remove work? People working for satisfaction and pleasure instead of trying to make it day to day seems like a massive improvement on many societal ills we face.

This is part of the issue that arises. I've spoken with many people about the concept of a low-scarcity, low-growth, etc... leisure economy and the responses are surprising. "But then what will people do?" "What will motivate them to work?" "Why would anyone want that much free time?" Some people just don't have passions strong enough to drive their lives.

Keynes also addresses this in the above linked article, saying:

"Thus we have been expressly evolved by nature – with all our impulses and deepest instincts – for the purpose of solving the economic problem. If the economic problem is solved, mankind will be deprived of its traditional purpose.

Will this be a benefit? If one believes at all in the real values of life, the prospect at least opens up the possibility of benefit. Yet I think with dread of the readjustment of the habits and instincts of the ordinary man, bred into him for countless generations, which he may be asked to discard within a few decades.

To use the language of to-day – must we not expect a general “nervous breakdown“? We already have a little experience of what I mean – a nervous breakdown of the sort which is already common enough in England and the United States amongst the wives of the well-to-do classes, unfortunate women, many of them, who have been deprived by their wealth of their traditional tasks and occupations – who cannot find it sufficiently amusing, when deprived of the spur of economic necessity, to cook and clean and mend, yet are quite unable to find anything more amusing. "

I haven't dug for any data but at first glance it seems that many of our societal "vices" could be responses to this lack of purpose. Some of the socialist humanists touch on this topic, what happens to a man without purpose? Drugs, pornography, violence, depression, striking out and grasping for any sort of stimulation while flailing in a search for meaning.

I forget who said it, but one author noted that purpose is as spiritually important as air. Without it, we break down.

How much of the Western world is built on grasping for the Next Big Thing? The entire consumer culture is predicated on this! And this consumer mindset gets reflected in the workforce. But if you think about it, it quickly boils down to the same dull need: the need to dominate, consume, and self-aggrandize.

These motives are exceedingly poor, and we consistently select leaders who exhibit them, often with terrible consequences.

As much as I hate to say this, I'm afraid that this is probably empirically true (although you have to be careful about the precise conclusions you draw from this).

Most Western countries today are in a state of mass long term unemployment - there are millions of people who have not had a job for a year or more.

What are these people doing today? Obviously they have only limited access to resources, but at least in European countries, they tend not to be starving. Are they leading fulfilling lives? Anecdotally, the answer appears to be no.

I do like the idea of giving everybody enough money for a decent life, no questions asked. It is a fundamentally good idea, and we can probably afford it. But to think that that will solve all our problems is just naive.

In fact, I think the combination of direct job creation for full employment (defined as zero involuntary unemployment) and a basic income is a valuable goal. The great thing is that both policies are probably beneficial just by themselves already, even though they should be combined.

If one task can fulfill all three points, you have it made.

There's nothing wrong with being industrious. Hard work, meaningful hard work, is rewarding in and of itself.