Up front: it is a fine perspective! Please take following as indulging your active curiosity because I find it compelling, not talking down. If I sat down for

Up front: it is a fine perspective! Please take following as indulging your active curiosity because I find it compelling, not talking down. If I sat down for a coffee with my favorite economics professor and they were doing a Socratic education thing, they’d ask: - What happens if someone refuses to work less? - Does that strike you as a stable state, or, the first turn in an assignment you gotta sketch out for that Game Theory class you’re taking. - What happens if we automate all of someone’s job? - What would it look like if we did this with ATMs? Would excess tellers be at home with same salary in perpetuity? Bank employment held stable with ATMs, even though tellers decreased. Under this proposal, would it have increased, as management couldn’t be automated and now can focus on loans? - What happens in a more factory-like setting, where automation of manual work might entail constant monitoring? In terse form: we’re instituting a more complicated form of communism with more moral hazards, and any analysis of what happens beyond the first step reveals a nest of complicated questions that result in less efficiency any time we build tools that could make us more efficient. The only thing I can think of is it would “resolve” generationally. I.e. if we needed 4 Grugs to carry the harvest, then invent the wheel and only need 1 Greg, 3 Grugs get to do nothing till they die and the generation that invented the tool reap no benefits of the invention, only their offspring will. (Their labor can get reallocated like the 3 Grugs normally would have)