If human labour becomes superfluous, it would be logical that the generation of income should also become superfluous. But as long as work and income are linked, just like taxes, human income recipients are needed. The many professions that are replaced by automation or AI will nevertheless need food. But how are the many unemployed supposed to pay taxes if they live off the state or a so-called granted basic income?

The question then arises whether an income is necessary at all. One might think that if so many goods, commodities and foodstuffs are largely produced by machines, then earning an income is somehow pointless. Like artificially employing a bagger next to a cashier to fill people's bags with their goods. The subsequent question everyone asks is: if machines do most of the work, who pays to have them made and maintained? One could casually answer: No one. Since it is clear that payment is unnecessary. But because no government/company in the world is willing to simply take its raw materials from the earth or reuse them without compensation. So the question of compensation arises, doesn't it?

Because money is the means of compensation par excellence, the idea of taking something other than money to compensate is difficult. But what could that be? It seems (to me), after all, the only logical answer to this scenario.

Because to keep people alive, and yet progressively continue the use of machines/robotics/AI, involves trading raw materials that are not always available in one's own country. If you only transport back and forth what is needed locally, you'd have peoples lives covered.

If energy supply, roads, buildings, supermarkets and everything that people need to live is to be maintained, but this is not achieved by people for people through their labor, is it not the case that all borders would have to be dissolved and all nations would have to agree that they would henceforth do the opposite of what they are currently doing? To renounce war, for example. To renounce the collection and distribution of taxes. In other words, to abolish money as a means of payment.

Since this is unthinkable and probably not feasible (what do I know), I think it is more likely that artificial labour and income and taxation will be maintained or even intensified. Working for the big ones (state and corporations) will probably increase in the foreseeable future. Becoming a human resource in its scary sense (which I detest).

In twenty or thirty years, the baby boomers will be dead and population growth will come to an abrupt end. It is foreseeable that when people fall below a certain birth rate, self-sustainability - based on tax and social security fees - will no longer be granted. So that the young people of today, when they themselves are old, do not depend on the income and tax and social contributions of the following generations (since this calculation does not work out anyway), other means are needed for their survival. It would probably make sense that machines/robotics/AI use have to be much cheaper than they are today. Tax machines? LOL

Maybe parallel worlds will come into being. Peoples living off the grids or forming small communities next to the big/mega cities. I really don't know. Maybe becoming married and having many children will become fashionable again and taking vows between males and females seriously again.

I already have knots in my brain when I think about this stuff too long.

I don't believe in post labor future. I think people will come up with some crazy (or ingenious, it depends) jobs as they always do. After all, humans want to work, whatever that might be, they cannot do nothing.