1. The quick answer is that we don't know how much of the misery of not working is from the financial shortfall of unemployment, vs the failure to meet a cultural expectation to work, vs some inherent need to feel productive, because it's just very hard to tease out the difference in reliable studies. How, eg, would you test this for prime-age adults at a time when income is tied to work and there is a cultural expectation that everybody work?

That said, my best guess is that about half of the psychological misery of losing a job and being unemployed comes from the non-money stuff, like being bored and failing to meet a cultural expectation to work. (This is distinct from people who choose to stay home with kids, who have chosen to immerse themselves in an essential activity and often feel great pride -- and stress! -- in these jobs, even though they're not compensated with income). As I said in the piece:

"The post-workists argue that Americans work so hard because their culture has conditioned them to feel guilty when they are not being productive, and that this guilt will fade as work ceases to be the norm. This might prove true, but it’s an untestable hypothesis. When I asked Hunnicutt what sort of modern community most resembles his ideal of a post-work society, he admitted, “I’m not sure that such a place exists.”"

2. The fact that unemployed men seem to be less social overall suggests to me that their rise in leisure is about more than the daytime unavailability of peers. Because otherwise, wouldn't they just go drinking with buddies every night? This suggests, to me, some shame of being unemployed that leads to self-imposed isolation. In any case, the misery of unemployment suggests that we're just not very good, as a culture (and particularly men), at finding non-screen-based things to do with our time when work goes away.

3. Crime has fallen by A LOT in the last few decades so I didn't want to go too deep into predicting a rise in crime at a time when violent crime seems to be in structural decline. That said, for young, less educated black men, there are a variety of barriers to their participation in the labor force including racist bosses not wanting to hire them, an abundance of low-paying service sector jobs that seem feminine (they're in health care, government, and education), and the cultural and economic allure of the black market and gangs in some areas. This is a really short summary, but I think the allure of gangs and crime is very complicated.

4. One of the biggest differences between 1977 and today is certainly the decline in crime. Crime didn't spike during the Great Recession, surprisingly.

5. I thought that's what the piece was about! :) But seriously, the section labeled Government: The Visible Hand tries to address this question (or at least this question as I understand it) head on.

One last thing, apropos of nothing except my stream-of-consciousness typing and the feeling that somebody might bring it up here, is that some people have pointed out to me on Twitter that I should have studied students or retired people, who both seem pretty happy and don't work. I don't accept the comparison. Students essentially have a job with school and a camaraderie on campus that the unemployed have lost when they lose the water cooler. (It is, perhaps, important to note that people choose to go to school in order to find a job, and what happens to college attendance if the expectation of full-time work takes a hit?) Retirees, for their part, do seem happy overall, but those with comfortable retirements are living on savings that they earned through work and they have the pride of having worked to earn their retirement. This is one of the hardest things about imagining the demise of a full-time workforce: Where else could this sort of pride come from?

You're still focused on a person only being able to gain value to society by working.

You're also conflating working to survive (our day jobs) with doing tasks or that you would can choose to do (the student attending a class, the retiree building sawhorses, the 20 something contributing to OSS, the full time homemaker). Not being required to do the first doesn't mean you're suddenly not doing the second as well.

hiking: I just do light hiking, and all I need is a couple of sandwiches, a backpack and my boots. And plenty of water. Plenty of hills/mountains around helps, that's true

biking/rollerscating: you can get a decent used bike for about $100

picnic: just the food, and you need to eat anyway

board games: unless you need to switch the game every week I'd say you're covered with about $50 per year. We mainly play Settlers of Catan and Chess

lan party: I guess it depends on the games, we don't do this much anymore, but we're pretty old school when we do (CS, Starcraft 1, Worms World Party)

There's probably lots of other activities like that, for example we play soccer/foot tennis on a public field, and all it costs us is the price of the ball

Hiking: Buy boots and suitable clothes. Fuel to get to suitable location.

Biking/Rollerskating: Buy equipment. Fuel to get to suitable location.

Picnic: transportation supplies. Fuel to get to suitable location.

Board games: Expensive. Fuel to get to suitable location.

Lan party: Buy games. Fuel to get to suitable location.

All it costs is fuel, utilities, rent, and food. For someone with no income, that is all I can spend money on, and it has to be justifiable. Not "Oh, I play board games every once in a while", because I don't want to have to pass up on a job interview because I stupidly spent my transportation money on board games. Or whatever else.

Picnics, games, sports, lan parties, we just do them at home or on the public domain

hiking and other stuff needs some transportation, we either go with public transport or carpooling

I'm not saying I understand your situation, just that you don't necessarily need to spend a lot of money (or any) to have some fun with friends.

Only if you attribute raising children, maintaining your house, or other activities as equivalent going to a desk job every day. I don't believe this is the case - I believe there is a pretty significant difference in doing things because you want to (raise children, beautify your house), and because it's required to put a roof over your head and food in your cupboard.

Given that, you can see if the guilt will fade just by looking at stay-at-home mothers and fathers, or by looking at retirees. Being a retiree is not much different from being unemployed, other than society (and consequently the retirees themselves) viewing them as having "earned it".

2. I agree with benaiah here - "drinking with buddies every night" would get damned expensive, even when you have a job.

3. I won't disagree with you, but it's something which needs to be investigated and addressed.

5. My reading of that section revealed a viewpoint which seems to only view the role of the government as a job creator/maintainer, which doesn't strike me as sustainable. At least, no more sustainable than just paying people directly.

For example, the government created quite a few jobs as part of "the new deal" - but where are those jobs today? Where are the workforces to maintain our bridges, our roadways, and the other parts of our failing public infrastructure? Those jobs disappeared, those workers retired or had to find another job (or were disabled by the hard labor and became wards of the state in another way).

Forcing people to work to survive seems old fashioned, and completely incompatible with the coming future of automation. We can forestall the day of 80%+ unemployment, but that will only make the drop-off that much more steep when it actually arrives. I'd personally rather we try and do something about it now, while the overall unemployment numbers are still below 50%.

EDIT: Sorry, forgot to put this in earlier, but I do appreciate you taking the time to stop by and answer questions like these!

How about interviewing early retirees? Those who have reached early financial independence and decided it was time to just not work any longer.