Free market applied to work/worforce (work demand & offer). More technology => less work needed =\=> less work hours with same pay. This is why the article rea

Free market applied to work/worforce (work demand & offer). More technology => less work needed =\=> less work hours with same pay. This is why the article reasoning (Keynes) is wrong. More technology => less work needed => less workers needed => more competition for jobs => workers are forced to accept lower wages for even more work hours => even less workers needed. We can get out of this circle in two ways: 1) Slow, by making less children => less workers => less competition for jobs => workers can demand higher pay for less work hours. Good because it's the natural free maket way of self-regulating. Bad because it takes generations of misery until it works and it probably doesn't work anyway. 2) Quick, by passing laws limiting work hours based on unemployment levels (real levels, not what governments count as unemployed). Good because it's quick. Bad because people (especially poor people) will complain that they can't live with only one job, even though lack of workers would increase wages quick, and also bad because artificially regulating jobs based on unemployment is probably very hard - different industries and even different cities can have different unemployment levels - and some level of market self-regulation is still needed. 3) Universal basic income Good because job market still self-regulates. Bad because governements MUST find a way to close the tax haven loophole to generate enough tax money for the UBI, and if they really wanted to do that, they would have done it already.