[quickthrower2]

If most of us “humans” not “hn subset” stopped working we’d be in deep trouble.

Who will maintain buildings, infrastructure, essential services, government etc.

I think we could work towards long term fewer hours and more people who don’t need to work though.

[falcolas]

My thinking is this - less than half of the population in the US holds a traditional job. 150M or so. And a vast majority of those are not jobs related to "essential" work. They're largely part of the retail and administrative workforce.

And so, if a majority of less than half of the US population is working unnecessary jobs (i.e. only valuable to our economy)... how much of what we do is really valuable to us as a species?

Which is a roundabout way to say that scarcity is a mostly if not completely solved problem; working to survive is largely no longer necessary, just customary.

[MrJohz]

There's a big leap there though from "non-traditional" to "not necessary". A colleague of mine is working on a project involving ensuring that farmers can track their feed and illness statistics correctly to improve their yields. It's not a traditional job, but it's absolutely necessary to ensure that (for example) the dairy industry can provide enough milk. (And moreover, to reduce the number of people who need to be working on calculating those statistics by hand.)

Likewise, you're also assuming that jobs that meet needs are more essential than jobs that meet wants, but the point of post-scarcity is that not only our needs are met, but our wants are as well. Picard can make himself a cup of earl grey whenever he wants, as opposed to sustaining himself with the recommended nutri-pack. One of my most fulfilling jobs was working for a t-shirt printing company - in theory, nothing we did was at all essential, but it was clearly very important to a lot of people's lives. Some of the most fascinating orders were memorial t-shirts being printed for people's funerals. Not essential at all, but I would argue very valuable to us as a species.

[ThunderSizzle]

> A colleague of mine is working on a project involving ensuring that farmers can track their feed and illness statistics correctly to improve their yields.

I doubt that's an example of a job/project that isn't just pure administrative burden. Even your example of a t-shirt printing company is more than just pure administrative burden - people need t-shirts, and people like their t-shirts to have art of some form. While art may be a luxury, it is also pleasant and required to some extent.

However, there are some roles that are pure administrative burden, and I tend to think the GP is correct that these roles are a lot more prevalent than we want to admit. I think the 80/20 rule could be applicable here - only 20% of the population produces 80% of the wealth (read: essential or luxury items) while the other 80% of the world are stumbling on themselves in bureaucracy to maybe make the rest of the remaining 20%.