[Apreche]

The author's premise is wrong. The real question is, how much work is there to do? Thanks to automation and other factors we only need a certain number of people to work. At some point, more people helping doesn't actually increase productivity.

If you believe there is work that needs doing and isn't getting done, then train and hire people to do it until everyone who is ready, willing, and able to work is doing so.

If there is a surplus labor force, don't doom them to die homeless in a gutter. Don't ask them to waste their lives doing undignified pretend-work. Guarantee for them the basic human rights of clothing, food, water, shelter, health care, and education. Whether you do that directly with taxation and government services, or indirectly, by handing out money that can be used to purchase those things, doesn't much matter either way.

And those people who aren't officially working jobs with wages, how many of them will truly not work at all? Sure, some will sit in front of the TV the rest of their lives. But many or most will find the freedom to still do valuable things without profit motive. I predict there would be an explosion of artistic production that would enrich our entire society even though it wouldn't show up on any balance sheet.

[sshine]

> The real question is, how much work is there to do?

The answer is highly subjective.

On the one hand, there are people who don’t work in spite of the absence of any income: some people believe the answer is “none”.

On the other hand, there are workaholics who already covered their total cost of living, yet have massive workloads: they believe the answer is “all of it!”

My goals in life are futuristic, so to quote Daft Punk: Our work is never over