> Even advanced economies will be unable to provide middle class lifestyles to everyone if most people are not being productive in some way. This doesn't reall

> Even advanced economies will be unable to provide middle class lifestyles to everyone if most people are not being productive in some way. This doesn't really make sense to me. If we look purely at the economy in terms of its inputs and outputs - in terms of goods and services - we won't suddenly have less goods and services. We'll have the same or more goods and services with lower costs (because robots will be cheaper than people - otherwise we'd just employ people). So you have the same end result (the goods and services) with less operating costs - seems to me like if you don't change anything you'd either 1) see business owners growing their share of wealth while the hordes of unemployed starve - or 2) you'd increase taxes and increase welfare spending and things would net out such that the average person's quality of life could be preserved. Of course, if you're argument assumes that we're hurtling straight towards option 1, then yeah that makes sense. But it doesn't mathematically make sense to me that automation _has_ to mean people become destitute.