> To put it bluntly: do you want her to be unemployed instead? Fine. Then write her a script and continue to pay her a salary. Hell, let her keep coming into w

> To put it bluntly: do you want her to be unemployed instead? Fine. Then write her a script and continue to pay her a salary. Hell, let her keep coming into work if she wants to. Functionally, what’s the difference to the business? Presumably she’s still going to want to maintain social relationships in her life, which means she’s got an intrinsic incentive to do things to benefit someone else even absent financial incentive. But now we’ve effectively got an atomic form of UBI, which scares people. Yet 1 person’s worth of work is being done for the cost of 1 salary. In fact, if she starts doing something else productive to society with her time, you’ve got 2 people’s worth of work being done for the cost of 1 salary. And if someone automates that and she switches to something else, it increases to a 3:1 ratio. Where is her employment status a problem, except to the sensibilities of people who believe that everyone needs to be “employed”? If no one ever automated what she was doing for fear of her losing her livelihood, then the maximum productivity we’d ever expect to see is 1:1. Seems like not having UBI or a stronger safety net is creating a perverse incentive for economic inefficiency.