Notre Dame is burning - aka capitalism/wealth distribution discussion.

[Masterbagger]

Automation happens when it is no longer cost effective to hire people.

Indeed, but the point is who benefits from that efficiency saving? Because it clearly isn't the worker is it?

The obvious answer is the following: The owner of the machine benefits, they own the machine and therefore they own it's economic output (minus purchase and maintenance costs)
But the machine is merely doing the same labour as the worker for a (often pretty marginal) saving.
It follows from this logic that the employer of the worker must effectively owns their labour and their economic output (minus their workers wages).
The inescapable conclusion is that the output of the workers labour does not primarily benefit them (or society as a whole) but specifically their employer, and that if this was not the case they'd have far less to fear from automation.

Personally I think this is deeply unfair. IMO it is undeniable that you own 100% of your own labour and that being dramatically short changed for it (which is the very basis of capitalism) is immoral.
Can you only imagine what kind of society we'd live in if 100% of everyone's labour directly benefited the entirety of society rather than the majority of it being siphoned off into "profit".

I don't want to imagine your perfect society. I suspect it won't involve the doers of complicated things getting the benefits of doing them. You use the most base unskilled labor as your example. Apply your ideal to skilled individuals who will expect to be compensated with a higher wage for using their skill.

[RegisterMe]

How's your AK-M feel about that?

[Masterbagger]

How's your AK-M feel about that?

The same as the state of my colon after eating those spicy wings I really should not have eaten. You are better for not knowing the details.