The use of automation can be viewed as time taken from one task,and put into another task. Automating a task does create less to do, but more time to do something else.
When we run out of "something else" to do, this will certainly create problems. Even if we don't run out, it will certainly create a shock to our system if we suddenly hit 45% unemployment.
This goes back to the earlier statement, of not creating less, but time for something else. No matter how much automation happens, it will only create room for humans to move on to the next thing. Possibly a never ending cycle.
If at any point in time all economic demand is covered with automation plus X% (lets say 50%) of the population, then the other half of humanity is economically superfluous and the market will regulate them (or us) out of the existence. (Or they will regulate the market out of the existence).
If automation becomes that prevalent, that would mean that a machine can do the job better / faster than a person. Which would allow the society to expand in other areas.
Since we as humans learn to overcome, the concept of money may become obsolete by the day automation takes over.
sources:
(since we are doing bad sources, i'd like to present a movie) wall-e - no use of money there, just people going through life
There must be a transition from the present and the post-scarcity world you describe. This premise is about that transition, in that a minimum salary is a useful transitioning mechanism.
Innovation will not outpace production, in all likelihood. Automation is more desirable by business entities because it increases profits for an already profitable commodity, while research costs money for the creation of an unknown (in terms of profitability) commodity.
The problem is *still* not with overproduction. It's about running out of the "next thing". At some point automation could saturate the market to the point where the majority of people are unemployable through no fault of their own. This argument is about that eventuality.
If automation becomes cheaper and more productive than certain types of people, then those people will be economically irrelevant. The options in such an economy for these people are (1) be provided with some form of unearned income, or (2) have no income, and so starve.
In a world with heavy automation, it is possible that we will reach a point where machines will provide all basic food, shelter, and medical needs for all of humanity. This very real possibility would reduce the need of having a minimum wage at all.
If the machines are providing "all basic food, shelter, and medical needs for all of humanity" for free, then they are simply providing a guaranteed income in the form of goods. It's not relevant to the overall argument what form the guaranteed income takes.
if there is anything that people prefer to have done by humans >> there will be demand for jobs >> there will be an economy and jobs >> you will be able to purchase things with that money you earned.
This is the wrong path. It's irrelevant whether there will be ANY jobs. The question is whether there will be ENOUGH jobs, and the answer is, "No", because technology makes jobs easier, requiring less manpower to produce equal or better results. UBI or class genocide are the most likely outcomes.
Unless people prefer their necessities -- such as food, water, clothing, shelter, medicine -- to be made by people, then they will have to acquire those necessities from the automation.
gappleto97
