> If 95% are crushed by misery, where will the 5% get their money from? I am not sure I see the problem. The 95% need goods and food. They buy it from the 5%.

> If 95% are crushed by misery, where will the 5% get their money from? I am not sure I see the problem. The 95% need goods and food. They buy it from the 5%. The 5% decide of the amount of money they accept to redistribute to the 95%. That can go on for a while. > Also, what will keep the 95% from revolting? Absolutely. But I am arguing that if your path toward a positive income has revolt as a necessary step, it is improvable. And even so, there is a risk: > What will save the 5%? What makes you think that soldiers will be sparred from automation? > There are people who don't want to work because they're lazy or incompetent. There are people who want to work and are very competent, but can't find a suitable job. It sounds to me that society would then benefit by having the lazy or incompetent people kept out of the work pool and paid to not work instead of having to make themselves absolutely necessary. If you have worked in any medium or big organization I am sure that you can think of people who would have actually saved their employer's money by receiving a salary and not come to work.