I think you misunderstand market economics. There might be things to do, but the owners would not be willing to pay people a living wage to do them. People without a living wage can't afford housing, groceries, etc. etc. etc.

Like how Ireland('s landed gentry) was exported potatoes during the potato famine. There was plenty of food; the locals just couldn't afford it.

> I think you misunderstand market economics.

I dunno, this doesn't sound like what I learned in my official concentration at MIT.

Hey, how about a real argument, instead of one that doesn't rely on accusations of ignorance or appeal to credentials? That would be awesome.

> There might be things to do, but the owners would not be willing to pay people a living wage to do them.

The proper response is EITC or NIT. This takes the work that is below the worker's reservation wage and puts it above the worker's reservation wage.

Saying "there are no jobs available to 60% of the population" is a solution (BI) looking for a problem (no employment). If you were to actually come across this problem in the wild, where there was lots of work to be done but it was all below labor's reservation wage, the obvious answer would be to subsidize labor.

FWIW, I don't believe we're going to have 60% unemployment in the future due to automation (or any other factor), but I do think that unemployment, underemployment, and plain old poverty wages are a real problem now.

My living quarters could use a good sweeping, but I ain't doing it, and I ain't paying anyone to do it, even though I could easily afford it.

I guess I'm an armchair internet expert, but I don't see how a theoretical 60% unemployment or the 10-30% under-employment/poor compensation we have now means there's no work to do.