[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.