If food were free, why work?

Framed as a blunt rhetorical question, the line expresses a hard-edged economic assumption: that the necessity of securing basic needs—here, food—is a primary motivator for labor. It can be read as a critique of proposals for unconditional provision (free food, welfare, or guaranteed income), implying that removing material pressure would erode the incentive to work. At the same time, the question invites rebuttal: people may work for reasons beyond subsistence—purpose, status, creativity, community, or long-term security. Its significance lies in how it crystallizes a recurring debate in political economy about coercion versus choice in labor markets and what truly motivates human productivity.