> The solution is to automate an appropriate amount of factory jobs, but also keep an appropriate amount of low-skill jobs so that these people can be part of s

> The solution is to automate an appropriate amount of factory jobs, but also keep an appropriate amount of low-skill jobs so that these people can be part of society. Yeah but, isn't the fact that those are going away the whole problem? If there already was an "appropriate amount of low-skill jobs" we wouldn't be talking about this. Do you want the government to mandate certain companies have to keep X number of certain jobs around for low-skilled workers? And what do you do about jobs that simply aren't needed anymore (not automated away, just gone due to something new)? I'm not saying it's a terrible idea, but it seems odd to me that you're complaining about UBI but your solution to the problem is likely just UBI with extra steps - is it more 'demeaning' to just give people money for nothing, or to force them to do a literally unnecessary job to get it? It's also not like there isn't anything for people to do if they're receiving UBI in place of their (now gone) job, Ex. they could volunteer at a non-profit, work on hobbies, work for a local business (that maybe couldn't afford to hire them at a full salary), etc. And all those things are arguably more useful usages of their time than making them do an unnecessary job. Still, fundamentally I agree with most of your criticisms, there's definitely a subset of the population that really can't be retrained from what they currently do, but recognizing the problem and solving the problem are two different things. And numbers here matter as well - the number of people losing their jobs to automation is a different number from those that can't reasonably be expected to be retrained somewhere else. If that second group is small enough, just giving them UBI/SS/etc. and telling them to retire is honestly not that bad of an option.