They could add back in the job where someone else presses the button in the elevator for you, that would also create jobs.

No need to be whimsical about it. But, yes, that's par for the course coming from an IT-focused forum, to hell with people in need of low-paying jobs, and we also don't want to speak with them, our lives are way too important for that.

I feel like we should be slightly more ambitious with ensuring the wellbeing of people than keeping around pointless jobs? At the least, if we're stuck on the government ensuring that there are jobs of some sort, it seems like jobs say more actively better the community (say library staff, community center staff, etc) would be much more fulfilling?

> around pointless jobs?

"Pointless jobs" for whom? It definitely puts food on the table for said persons' families, that is definitely not "pointless". Or do you think a lady in her 50s will just hop into any job at her discretion? (no, "community stuff" will just not cut it, you need at least a university diploma for that).

And this comes after those discussions on the tens of thousands of pointless jobs inside FAANG companies, a discussion that we had a few days ago. Jobs which are paid very handsomely, btw.

If we are compelling companies to pay for people that they would otherwise not, that seems like a job without use.

Give people welfare without giving them jobs that are drags on progress.

> (no, "community stuff" will just not cut it, you need at least a university diploma for that)

Give me a break. The world functioned fine before any and every random job required a university diploma and would be better off if people stopped asking for them. You would think on a site worshipping the famed hacker-without-a-degree this opinion would be absent.

> Or do you think a lady in her 50s will just hop into any job at her discretion?

Come on, this is an obvious strawman

Ideally, as more jobs are automated and less work is needed, a robust welfare state would provide people with income so they wouldn’t need to do jobs that exist purely to employ someone.

Many people who work such jobs are mothers who wish they could spend more time with their children, adults who wish they could care for an aging parent, students who should have more time studying and socializing, etc.

“Creates extra jobs” has a pretty direct linkage to “drives higher prices”.

If the job is extra/not needed, some consumers will rationally prefer to self-serve (for whatever connotation if that you prefer).

Then those "not needed" will rationally (and in many instance literally) kick those rational consumers in the head, in order to have something to put on the table. It's as simple as that. And then it becomes a race of "let's better fund the police so that we'll keep the not needed at bay" vs "maybe it's just not good policy to kick the not needed while they're down, maybe it's not all their fault".

We should be expecting a smaller proportion of the population to be working in most sub-sectors of the economy each year, as new, innovative areas provide opportunities for relatively inexperienced people with high aptitude to work more productively and earn higher wages. It's fine having people bagging groceries at supermarket checkouts, but that isn't really going to work out in the coming years if those same people are going to be demanding state-of-the-art medical treatments, developed-world retirement benefits and cutting-edge consumer goods.

While we're at it, let's add staff to "checkout" code from source control. :-)