Of course the underlying assumption here is that putting people out of work will negatively effect the economy or the well-being of individuals, which isn't necessarily the case. This is currently how our system works (so it will in the short-term), but if we want to collectively progress as a society I think most would agree that the average individual should have vastly more amounts of leisure-time in the future than they do today. Perhaps that means not everyone needs to work.
I believe we're fast approaching the need to re-evaluate how we treat (un)employment and the role of individuals with an imposed obligation towards economic contribution, particularly due to the automation and/or efficiency we gain through technology. Will we always have enough work for everyone to sufficiently provide for themselves without "redistribution of wealth" programs? More importantly, if we force everyone to work to provide for themselves, is the work done actually creating value to society? Is it necessary?
I believe we're fast approaching the need to re-evaluate how we treat (un)employment and the role of individuals with an imposed obligation towards economic contribution, particularly due to the automation and/or efficiency we gain through technology. Will we always have enough work for everyone to sufficiently provide for themselves without "redistribution of wealth" programs? More importantly, if we force everyone to work to provide for themselves, is the work done actually creating value to society? Is it necessary?