This reads like someone who is quite out of touch with the trades. A large number of states implement right to work laws that discourage union membership. I could go out and get a framer job today (and with the current immigration crackdown probably have one by the end of the day). Having worked as a framer before college, it will be incredibly long before these jobs have any level of automation (a thought which gives me comfort when I consider my own job prospects).
However, I'm thankful everyday that I get to sit in an A/C office and type on a computer. Framing is hard work and ruthless. Most people won't last a day doing it because of how challenging it is.
Who is going to buy the houses? Who is going to own the land? Not many people need a plumber. Look back some decades. We can't all just work in the trades. It doesn't make sense from a supply and demand stance.
A decrease in quality of life is an acceptable cost to stay alive. In a very different economy, people will just fix their own toilet with scavenged or bartered parts.
> Not many people need a plumber
Do you… not have running water?
My point was that humans can do most residential plumbing tasks easily, and the effort and cost involved in learning and acquiring tools might outweigh the desire to pay for a service in a future economy with scarce labor opportunities.
Also, in such a bleak future, there might not be running water where you currently own property.
But really you're answering your own question. The economy is not a zero sum game- It adapts. Why do our current jobs exist? Because somebody is paying for what we produce. Then we take our pay and buy what other people produce. There could be an equilibrium today (or 20 years ago) where nobody has any jobs but there are generally feedback loops that help get to a functioning economy.
It's not impossible that unemployment will go up but it's not as simple as LLMs will take our jobs. There's always more jobs to do and there are always some other equilibrium points. And it's not even clear LLMs are taking our jobs, one might argue that they'll end up creating more jobs.
>Why do our current jobs exist? Because somebody is paying for what we produce. Then we take our pay and buy what other people produce.
Because ample property and resources exist that require your (human) labor to turn into products.
If for example pumping water to AI data centers is more profitable than using it on crops and drinking water "the economy" would gladly watch you dehydrate and die. Economic short circuits such as war or governments have to step in and ensure basic human needs are met or a collapse of society can occur, and such things have occurred in the past, so this just isn't some kind of hypothetical.
Just remember there is no need for you in the post labor economy. If rich robot owners get the labor they need from other sources they'll gladly exterminate you and live in a much less populated planet.
> There's always more jobs to do and there are always some other equilibrium points.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hooverville
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_in_Venezuela
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation_in_Zimbabwe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_Brazil#Sta...
> This reads like someone who is quite out of touch
No, it’s Indiana. They practice self-sabotage across many industries in the belief that the big-city folks just across the border will take all the jobs. Chicago, Cincinnati, Louisville. All of them just across the state line. Of course, very little thought about why large metros are just across the state line…