Automation reduces costs.
Competition reduces prices.
Consumers spend less money on the same type of good.
Consumers can now save money or spend it on other goods.
Imagine universal automation exists: .e.g a machine can improve the productivity of every human by 10x.
There are two possible outcomes: Humans work 10 times less for the same standard of living or humans work the same amount of hours for 10 times the standard of living.
In theory it's actually not possible to choose the first scenario because it's guaranteed someone will choose the second option to get priority access to a rivalrous exclusionary good (like land) which often has no soft price ceiling because it's not possible to produce more of it. People who can only find part time work during the transition to a new industry still have the same standard of living as before automation but they might no longer be able to afford the non automated expenses like housing.
The primary problems that should be addressed are basic costs of living. Extreme example: If it only costs 10% of a median fulltime salary to stay alive then it doesn't matter if you're poor or not. You can still afford it.
Yeah, automation will reduce jobs in the space that it's automating. It would be pretty absurd if it didn't reduce the number of jobs for that situation. The thing is that automation in one space increases jobs across the economy. A good example of this is how the vast majority of people used to be employed farming but as it has gotten more efficient the economy has created jobs in other sectors. Short term destruction of jobs is obviously an issue while the economy adjusts but long term the main concern would be that the economy stops having the ability to create new jobs at all. That long term catastrophe hasn't happened yet when we were in similar situations in the past so my guess would be that it won't happen this time but I'm not sure.
Imagine universal automation exists: .e.g a machine can improve the productivity of every human by 10x. There are two possible outcomes: Humans work 10 times less for the same standard of living or humans work the same amount of hours for 10 times the standard of living.
In theory it's actually not possible to choose the first scenario because it's guaranteed someone will choose the second option to get priority access to a rivalrous exclusionary good (like land) which often has no soft price ceiling because it's not possible to produce more of it. People who can only find part time work during the transition to a new industry still have the same standard of living as before automation but they might no longer be able to afford the non automated expenses like housing.
The primary problems that should be addressed are basic costs of living. Extreme example: If it only costs 10% of a median fulltime salary to stay alive then it doesn't matter if you're poor or not. You can still afford it.