[direwolf20]

Landlords, probably. The only people you have to keep paying even if they don't do anything and nobody is employed.

[fcantournet]

landlords need people to pay the rent. Or to spell it out more precisely : the construction/housing industry off of which land lords extract value needs external value creation to still exist AND give revenue to spend to a large population. "Houses are for people to live in" may be a communist slogan right now, but it's also very basic macro-economic reality.

[direwolf20]

When someone is living in the house, the landlord can get the rent. Either voluntarily, or by force through the courts. Even if nobody is employed.

[lbreakjai]

If nobody is employed, then nobody has any money to live in a house, and the landlord doesn't get any rent.

[direwolf20]

The landlord then has the right to make someone homeless, for no benefit to anybody, just out of spite that he isn't getting rent.

[lbreakjai]

Sure. But he still doesn't have the money to buy the labour the OP was wanting to sell. Which was the point of the argument: If you think AI will destroy most white collar jobs, learning a trade won't help.