[rskar]

>Technological unemployment may happen some day. But it hasn't happened yet.

That's the crux of the matter: Whether "some day" happens sooner rather than later. Also, what to do when "some day" comes.

You know it's coming, there's big money and serious effort into making things like Robo-Maid, Robo-Taco-Truck, Robo-laundry-guy, Robo-Driver, etc., a practical reality. We know that Robo-Burger-Maker is rather real today: http://www.eater.com/2016/7/1/12077990/robot-burgers-san-fra....

Your blanket statement regarding on why "valuable work is just not getting done" is overall a side-issue. Welfare may be gaming a system. Disability fraud is certainly criminal. Let's add to that: Living off a pension; Born a "trust-fund baby"; Fully retired on investments. There are plenty of other reasons that certain somebodies do not seek employment income, and perhaps do not have to.

People have good reason to fret about the availability, attainability and retain-ability of gainful employment. There's plenty of history and recent events to make such fretting reasonable (e.g. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-02-04/what-happened...).

[yummyfajitas]

If you read the statistics cited in your usnews article you'll see they aren't disagreeing with me. According to them the issue is that there are lots of people who are "neither employed nor actively looking for work".

That's what I'm saying too, in addition to the fact that many folks could find work if we didn't illegalize the work they would do (e.g. hair braiding, selling tacos). There are many reasons why people don't work today, but being replaced by machines is not one of them. So whatever solutions we implement today should reflect the problem of today: useful work isn't getting done.

If we ever reach the future where I have a Robo-Maid and where Robo-Burger-Flipper is more than just a gimmick, then we can come up with a solution tailored to tomorrow's problems.

Similarly, if you are fat eat less. If you are underweight eat more. An obese person eating more because some day they might be underweight is really just making excuses for gluttony.

[rskar]

>According to them the issue is that there are lots of people who are "neither employed nor actively looking for work".

I wonder if we're talking past each other. Perhaps robots aren't the top reason for the apparent worldwide decline in labor participation (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.TLF.CACT.ZS ). But robots have brought economic dislocation, especially in the manufacturing sector. The worry has been out for a long time on whether displaced workers can find other gainful employment in reasonable time (http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1982/09/art2full.pdf ). Note this is not about getting merely any job, but a job that can bring a satisfying life. As the automation has grown more capable, so has this concern (https://hbr.org/2014/12/what-happens-to-society-when-robots-... ).

Consider the full quote regarding the "neither employed nor actively looking for work"[1]: It critiques the official unemployment rate as shrouding a dysfunctional employment scene. Gallup says: "The official unemployment rate, which cruelly overlooks the suffering of the long-term and often permanently unemployed as well as the depressingly underemployed, amounts to a big lie."

The usnews article also cites other stats on wage gains, shrinking middle class, growing low-income, etc., all to illustrate its main point: "The Pew study considers a widening wealth gap to be driving the wage growth disparity, as more and more workers find themselves at the extremes of the income spectrum. And this gap is generated in part by the unavailability of what Gallup considers to be good jobs."

This pressure for "good jobs" has brought movements such as raising the minimum wage or implementing universal basic income. Invariably this leads to questions on whether the wages for low-skill jobs should ever exceed their apparent economic worth in the name of a "living wage". From there inevitably robots are brought into the picture (limited, gimmicky, or otherwise), if for no other reason than to suggest that low-skill workers may price themselves out of a job.

Putting it all together - robots on top of widening wealth gap on top of shrinking middle class... - well people worry, you know?

==== [1] The full quote is: Gallup also is among a host of organizations and individuals to criticize some of the government's statistical methodologies in recent years. The national unemployment rate of 5 percent, for example, doesn't keep track of the more than 94 million Americans who are neither employed nor actively looking for work. And while at least some of those not counted in the labor force are either in school or retired, there's also a sizable portion that simply hasn't actively looked for a job in the last four weeks. People who give up looking for employment altogether aren't actually counted as unemployed, even though they may have been without a job longer and in greater need than anyone who's regularly sending resumes out.

[yummyfajitas]

Robots may bring about dislocation in specific industries, but that's just a disingenuous way of saying "people refuse to change industries or accept jobs they don't like". That's fine, but that's not robots taking all the jobs - just the specific job that specific people want.

Gallup is also being disingenuous when it uses words like "permanently unemployed" to refer to people not seeking work.

Invariably this leads to questions on whether the wages for low-skill jobs should ever exceed their apparent economic worth in the name of a "living wage".

If only there were some sort of Earned Income Tax Credit that could provide less productive people subsidies to maintain a wealthy lifestyle [1] while also giving them incentive to work...

Unlike minimum wages and BI, EITC doesn't exacerbate the problem of people refusing to work and it costs a lot less too. It won't solve technological unemployment, but it will solve your "satisfying life" concern as well as my "people refuse to contribute to society while making demands on it" concern.

[1] I refuse to use the term "living wage", since billions of my fellow humans (luckily on the other side of an imaginary line, so we can ignore them) earn far less than this without dying.