In your recent post, you noted that the (first) world is moving to a frivolity/art economy. What will that mean for employment? After all, robots are making our cars and, increasingly, our burgers— and, like it or not, those are jobs that in the past were filled by regular people whose natural talents were in menial work. Not everybody has the talent or desire to spend their time writing novels or direct avant-garde movies…and that’s OK; people shouldn’t be cut out of an economy because of their natural skill set. What will that mean for employment or the economy? It seems unrealistic to give everybody a $30k/year minimum income, for example, as I’ve seen suggested; that seems fiscally undoable.
There’s a grim meathook future answer and a nice answer, depending on whether we follow our current plutocratic path or not.
But first I’d just note that your question seems rather regressive. It’s like Aldous Huxley assuming that the future must include a huge population of subhuman menials. Dumb repetitive work is what machines do very well; those jobs just disappear.
The grim meathook answer is what’s happening today: lots of low-paid service work— call center employees, Wal-Mart greeters, nannies, waiters, nursing home attendants, home sales party presenters, bodyguards, flight attendants, SEO farm writers. What humans do better than robots, for the indefinite future, is deal with other humans. We need and value human contact, and anyway most of these jobs, even if they’re not exciting, require a generalist. Humans deal well with the moderately unexpected.
Or to put it another way, automation targets expensive, repetitive jobs. When you get rid of the $40/hour factory jobs, you have a large population that is forced to take $10/hour service jobs. Even for Mr. Scrooge it’s not worth bothering to replace those jobs.
In the more optimistic future, we use the increased productivity that automation brings to improve everyone‘s life. That’s what even the curmudgeonly old USA did in the liberal era, so it’s not unthinkable. Poverty used to be universal; in mid-century America the vast majority were middle class; an even richer society could, if it chose, eliminate poverty entirely. (That “we’ll always have poverty” is a myth to comfort the 1%. We could end absolute poverty globally for a surprisingly small sum.)
I don’t think anyone has ambitions limited to factory work or bagging groceries. Everyone has some dream that they’d love to be paid to do. In our economic system, maybe it’s too silly or specialized to pay well, but a world where the robots do all the heavy lifting is one where everyone can be a specialist or a frivolist.
But even in the more ideal world, it remains true that humans are better at making other humans happy. When you’re 94, you probably don’t want to be surrounded only by robots. So ‘elder care’ is still a human niche, but it’s seen as valuable rather than degrading and paid enough to make it attractive.
The SEO writer may not exist in the happier future, but only because he’ll be doing something far weirder. In the Incatena, rather than a thousand different jobs with a million people in each— a situation that may be automatable— there’s a million different jobs with a a thousand people in each.