The problem is that it's a misallocation of human capital which slows progress for all of society. We should be providing social safety nets for people, not fake jobs.
> We should be providing social safety nets for people, not fake jobs.
I agree with you (except in classifying the genuine effort of my fellow people to be "fake jobs" just because a computer can do some of the work) and believe making a resilient, trustworthy, proven system for the former is a prerequisite to withdrawing the latter, to avoid suffering.
Unfortunately for us, the barrier to the former is ideological in nature and imposed by the elite few in power now, before any matters of capital allocation (human or financial) come into play.
Nobody has classified genuine effort as fake. But what good is genuine effort when it can be done much more easily without it? There's no shame whatsoever in this. At least, I don't think we should add any to the situation.
> Nobody has classified genuine effort as fake. But what good is genuine effort when it can be done much more easily without it?
This was previously stated: the good being done is 100,000 people can feed their families. What good is going without that? You'll enrich some private equity dudes and make a lot more people unemployed and a lot more families unhappy.
No, but claims processing is already highly automated across much of the insurance industry and the level of automation will only increase in the future.
