Robots are tools. Tools can only ever act as a multiplier for the productivity of a worker. A robot can't take your job anymore than a power screwdriver can tak

Robots are tools. Tools can only ever act as a multiplier for the productivity of a worker. A robot can't take your job anymore than a power screwdriver can take a carpenter's job, it only makes the carpenter more productive. This only eliminates jobs if you arbitrarily hold the total amount of production constant. Why would you do that? In a sane society, we'd celebrate increased worker productivity and use it to increase quality of life by making more and better things and maintaining the things we already have. Entropy ensures there will always be useful maintenance work to be done. It really shows how effective media gas-lighting has been that otherwise smart people believe that increased productivity necessitates unemployment or a massive shift of economic control to the public sector. All of that said, there are definitely reasons to move money creation away from the top 0.1% that are well connected and have banking licenses and somehow tie it more directly to productive behavior by individuals. Basic income is only interesting as a baseline model. The same total amount of new money could be introduced to the economy by lottery for example. Anytime you game something like this out you should include a random model as well as a constant one, as baselines to compare more sophisticated approaches against.