In recent years, a growing trend has emerged among Gen Z and Millennials: the “NEET” lifestyle, which stands for “Not in Employment, Education, or Training.” This phenomenon, while intriguing, has sparked significant debate about its long-term viability and ethical implications. Coupled with the rising support for Universal Basic Income (UBI) among younger generations, it’s time to delve into why these concepts, particularly UBI, may not be the panacea they are often portrayed to be.
The Rise of the NEET Lifestyle
The NEET phenomenon isn’t entirely new, but its prevalence has grown, especially among young adults disillusioned by traditional career paths. The term “lay flat” first gained traction in Asia, referring to individuals who choose to disengage from the workforce, opting instead for a life of minimalism and low stress. This mindset has since made its way to the West, where it’s seen a significant uptick in adoption.
As someone who occasionally enjoys the comfort of their couch, I can empathize with the desire to “lay flat.” However, in the real world, perpetual relaxation is neither feasible nor desirable. Despite this, anti-work communities have become more visible and vocal, rebranding themselves as NEETs. Business Insider recently reported that NEETs, predominantly Gen Z, and Millennials, often express a preference for doing nothing over enduring dissatisfaction at work. This sentiment reflects a broader cultural shift towards valuing mental health and personal fulfillment over traditional measures of success.
Understanding the NEET Subculture
It’s crucial to differentiate between those who are NEET by circumstance and those who are NEET by choice. The former group includes individuals struggling through tough economic times, living off loans, and facing an uncertain future. These “accidental NEETs” often find themselves trapped by decisions made in pursuit of higher education and career advancement, only to be met with economic instability and disillusionment.
Conversely, “voluntary NEETs” actively choose this lifestyle, rejecting available job opportunities that don’t meet their ideal standards. This subgroup seeks to reclaim the NEET label, promoting a subculture of intentional idleness while waiting for a more suitable workplace culture to emerge. This mindset epitomizes the Gen Z ethos: rejecting the status quo in favor of a tailored, idealized version of employment.
The TikTok Influence and the NEET Narrative
As with many cultural trends, the NEET lifestyle has found a home on TikTok. Videos featuring individuals celebrating their choice to remain unemployed while soliciting donations have gone viral, further spreading the NEET ideology. One such TikToker, who shared their story with Business Insider, exemplifies this phenomenon. Despite having been employed in a high-paying job, they chose to remain jobless after being laid off, framing their decision as a moral statement against the pressures of traditional employment and self-improvement narratives.
This TikTok personality highlights a broader issue within the NEET community: the rejection of self-improvement. The disdain for figures like Jordan Peterson, who advocate for personal responsibility and growth, is palpable. This rejection is often juxtaposed with a reliance on external support, such as GoFundMe campaigns, to maintain their chosen lifestyle. This contradiction underscores a critical flaw in the NEET ideology: the expectation of financial support without reciprocal contribution.
The UBI Debate: Promise vs. Reality
Support for Universal Basic Income (UBI) has surged among younger generations, with studies showing overwhelming favorability among Gen Z and Millennials. The concept of UBI, which proposes regular, unconditional payments to all citizens, is seen as a solution to economic inequality and job displacement due to automation. Proponents argue that UBI would provide a safety net, enabling individuals to pursue their passions without the constraints of financial insecurity.
However, the reality of UBI is far more complex. A recent large-scale study funded by the founders of OpenAI aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of UBI. The study involved 1,000 households earning under $29,900 annually, each receiving $1,000 per month for three years. The results were sobering:
- Decreased Earnings: UBI participants ended up earning $1,500 less per year despite receiving $12,000 annually from the program. For every dollar received, total household income dropped by 21 cents.
- Extended Unemployment: Participants remained unemployed for an additional month compared to those in the control group.
- Reduced Work Effort: There was no significant improvement in employment quality or efforts to gain further education or training.
- Increased Disability Claims: Participants reported higher rates of disability, potentially to secure additional government benefits.
These findings reveal a critical issue: UBI does not necessarily incentivize productivity or self-improvement. Instead, it can foster dependency and reduce overall economic participation. The study’s results suggest that when given a financial cushion, individuals may be less motivated to seek employment or enhance their skills, ultimately perpetuating the very issues UBI aims to address.
The Psychological and Social Implications of UBI
Beyond economic metrics, the psychological and social ramifications of UBI are significant. Work provides more than just financial stability; it offers a sense of purpose, structure, and social interaction. The NEET lifestyle, while initially appealing, can lead to long-term dissatisfaction and mental health challenges. The monotony of idle days, even when filled with hobbies or social activities, lacks the fulfillment derived from meaningful work and contribution.
Moreover, UBI’s potential to disrupt social norms cannot be ignored. Work is a foundational aspect of human societies, tied to dignity, progress, and collective well-being. The notion that work is merely a social norm is misleading; it is a fundamental element of human survival and prosperity. Abandoning this principle in favor of widespread reliance on UBI could lead to a societal regression, where fewer individuals contribute to economic and social advancement.
Conclusion: A Call for Balance and Responsibility
The NEET lifestyle and the push for UBI reflect broader cultural and economic shifts, highlighting valid concerns about work-life balance, mental health, and economic security. However, these trends also reveal the dangers of extreme dependency and the erosion of personal responsibility. While UBI may offer temporary relief, it is not a sustainable solution to economic inequality or job displacement.
A balanced approach is necessary, one that values both economic security and personal responsibility. Encouraging self-improvement, education, and skill development remains crucial. At the same time, social safety nets should support those in genuine need without fostering long-term dependency.
For Gen Z and Millennials, the challenge lies in navigating these complexities, finding a path that balances personal fulfillment with societal contribution. By embracing the value of work, even when it is not ideal, and striving for continuous improvement, this generation can build a future that is both prosperous and fulfilling.
In the end, work and productivity are not mere social norms; they are integral to human dignity and progress. As we continue to debate the merits of UBI and the NEET lifestyle, we must remember that true fulfillment comes not from avoiding responsibility but from embracing it. Only then can we create a society that supports both individual aspirations and collective well-being.
