Hacker News Reader

That's not the question. The question is whether the job should exist at all vs the cost of a fair wage in that job if it does continue to exist.

Should we hire five million people to unnecessarily sit and click a button or type out phone numbers to send text messages and connect phone calls to their destination through a switch in the cell networks? We could make it that way. Rhetorically how much would that job be worth? That's why it doesn't and shouldn't exist.

If machine is capable of doing the same job as human, then machine should be paid salary that could be then used for healthcare, electricity or education.

That's an absurd statement.

The job it replaced doesn't just go away. The people who made the machine can either sell it or lease it for a profit. That's where the job goes. To the machine-maker.

That's an absurd statement. Should you get compensated for throwing your trash away too?

In reality you're "compensated" by having a burger that costs $5 instead of $10.

This is not a great analogy, because you are paying for the trash to be taken with your taxes.

This era will see some debate on the value of the idea of job.