Scroll up - we aren't discussing possible approaches to a hypothetical world with zero jobs at all. We are discussing the actual outcome of globalization so far, which is more goods and services with less work required on our part.
It was Aswanson who raised the apocalyptic scenario of no jobs, presumably because all our material needs are taken care of by robots or Chinese people, not me.
Scroll up - we aren't discussing possible approaches to a hypothetical world with zero jobs at all. We are discussing the actual outcome of globalization so far, which is more goods and services with less work required on our part.
Not even close. That's your current redefintion of the argument. Scroll up. The thread started off as a set of defensive/offensive prescriptions given the current macro state of affairs, which led to the labor implications of free trade, which led to your utopian exposition of the only possible configuration of free labor. You were asked about other possible configurations of this state, and no apocalypse was mentioned at all.
In addition, you ended with the only way this could happen would be if the chinese and robots take care of everything, and nothing could possibly ever go wrong along that direction of displacement of the workforce...because...because...I dunno...libertarianism. So, asking again, do we have evidence of the robot/Chinese paradise being the only end-game, or are there other paths that things can evolve into?
It was Aswanson who raised the apocalyptic scenario of no jobs, presumably because all our material needs are taken care of by robots or Chinese people, not me.