> "
Seriously, who wants to work a job that a machine can do better, cheaper, and more efficiently? Work for the sake of work is not meaningful."
You think Buzz Aldrin didn't want to go to the Moon because a probe with a camera would have been cheaper? I think this claim is flawed; people want to contribute and work. People don't want to be exploited, overworked, underpaid, set in contest with machine production levels.
> "This will only be good for our economy"
Having two trillionaires who swap fortunes every day, and half a billion starving peasants would be great for the economy on paper and awful for the humans. Forget the economy, will this be good for the people? What kind of work is lacking now which a large number of people made unemployed could do to earn a living and stay alive? A hundred years ago houses were cold and empty, pantries were bare, communication was expensive and slow, people walked everywhere in their one suit and drank well water. Now houses are warm, food is refridgerated, comms is cheap and fast, even the quite poor have cars, clothing, and as much clutter as anyone needs, the hungry are not lacking for food production they are lacking for access to food. Are we not nearly saturated with music, books, films, streamers, YouTubers, TV shows, documentaries on anything and everything?
Take a vacuum cleaner, first it didn't exist and people had rugbeaters. Then it existed as a horse drawn vehicle which came around and let rich people vacuum occasionally. Then it became an engine driven thing out in a shed with pipes to every room in a big house and an oil trap. Then it became electric and movable, plugged into light sockets overhead. Then it became small and portable and using mains power, plastic instead of metal, bagged, then upright and light, then bagless, then then quieter, then cyclonic, now cordless or Roomba. And manufactured far away.
How much more development can the vacuum cleaner take which an ordinary person could do - it probably won't be ten million truck drivers, marketing managers, paralegals, or janitors developing the faster charging battery chemistry or the newer automated production line or the fluid dynamics simulation for making it quieter or the more intelligent Roomba software.
All household goods are in a similar position; what's the equivalent of the last 100 years of development for the next 100 years? It's looking pretty likely that it's not flying cars, spaceships, space elevators, jetpacks, teleporters, Star-Trek replicators, silver jumpsuits, food pills, and so far it's looking like it isn't even Blu-Ray, 3D TV, VR headsets. It's all very well to talk about unlimited greed, but at "enough stuff for a lifetime" and then at "hundreds of times more stuff than a lifetime" we have to be approaching some practical limits, don't we?