>like retraining people whose jobs have been automated away

In the scenario I am describing, this is not possible.

Yes I am aware of the luddites. I also strongly believe that a threshold exists where technology can outperform humans in every conceivable way, and we will cross that line one day. FWIW, complete collapse of our (current) economic system would occur well before we reach that line anyways. If even 50% of humans were displaced by technology you would likely see violent revolution. Consider the impact of the US great depression, where just under 25% of people were unemployed...

> In the scenario I am describing, this is not possible.

Ok, I wasn't sure how you meant your comment, so I addressed the more plausible (although less literal) interpretation. Thanks for clarifying though. I imagine your scenario is theoretically possible, but it's science fiction for the foreseeable future, so I'm not very concerned about it. That said, it's interesting and I often think about it; I'd be really interested to hear economists opinions.

Retraining might equalize things enough to prevent violent insurrection. However, if a fair share of profit increases only go to executives/shareholders, then I'm not sure we can train people for jobs high enough up the hierarchy to actually reach a just system.

It's not really a tractable problem without concretely defining 'fair' and 'just'. It seems like you're driving toward something interesting (if only theoretical); I'd be really interested to hear from an economist.

That's a good point. I don't have much theoretical background in economics so I feel like I'm unintentionally speaking vaguely due to not knowing the correct/best terms and theories.

I think the way I would define fair (and obviously this is somewhat a value judgement rather than objective fact) is that: I don't think its unjust that a CEO gets payed more than a line worker, but when the company succeeds then I think the increase in profits should be divided up such that the ratio of their incomes stays about the same.

Also, when I say "just" I don't mean that in an extreme way where if profits aren't divided up 100% fairly then employees are oppressed wage slaves. Even if my ideal system where implemented things would still be subjective. For example, what if my employer implemented very generous benefits but didn't pay quite as well?

I guess the problem I have with terms like "justice" and "injustice" (not to pick on you specifically) is it seems to presume that poverty is the result of greed or nefarious motives when it's exclusively the result of economic inefficiency (sometimes this inefficiency is caused by greed). In failing to properly diagnose the problem, solutions come out which actually reduce market efficiency and thus perpetuate more poverty. Moreover, everyone already agrees that poverty is bad, so arguing about "injustice" instead of "optimizing the economy" seems unlikely to persuade anyone.

I'm already on board with eliminating poverty! Don't tell me "hiking the minimum wage is the right thing to do and the economics will work itself out", show me the math that says we can do it without inadvertently creating more poverty.