I think this is a good, Graeber-tinged take on the labor supply and economics of automation. You can make an argument not that there’s a “real” labor shortage,

I think this is a good, Graeber-tinged take on the labor supply and economics of automation. You can make an argument not that there’s a “real” labor shortage, merely a misallocation of labor that has undesirable consequences for consumers. Classically, the purpose of government funds in cases like these (market incentives mismatches) is to reduce risk or spur investment in sectors where capital would not otherwise be allocated. I personally find it absurd that UBI would even be on the table when you could (presumably) use the same funds to solve market issues like these unless you think (and you’d be wrong) that the only issues with the housing or medical market are strictly related to affordability and that they could be solved by giving consumers money. I think UBI could work to spur consumption, but most Western economies aren’t suffering from a shortage there. One dynamic that UBI could help support is keeping the labor supply tight as automation eliminates jobs. Srineck (and others) identify this imbalance of power as crucial for developing a post-capitalist economy: if Capital’s anti-human impulses are allowed to run amok unmitigated, we will see more of the same when it comes to human needs being unmet while the (inhuman) lines on the graph go up.