I guess the argument would go that a new economic model will be required at that stage.

There isn't much point in having people do jobs they don't like which are trivial to automate just for money, but at the point where there isn't enough economically useful things for everyone to do, the current system falls down.

> What is the benefit exactly?

Well one benefit would be international competitiveness. The country that does it slowest will be the country doing more work for less output.

> but at the point where there isn't enough economically useful things for everyone to do

This assumes that for example a person who has been an artist for 20 years, can easily enough switch professions to a machinist, and the only reason for them not to do it is because the economy has no need for another machinist. An insane way to think. This is not how humans work.

Let me see any HN dweller go from their cushy home office to butchering animals for meat on 12-hour shifts for example... Oh and btw, no safety net to give you food, housing and healthcare while you learn the new craft!

> I guess the argument would go that a new economic model will be required at that stage.

> ...but at the point where there isn't enough economically useful things for everyone to do, the current system falls down.

Not necessarily. To quote the Bobs from Office Space: "He won't be receiving a paycheck anymore, so it will just work itself out naturally." No need to change, just let the plebs die out.

The paper is suggesting such a new economic model. Do you have a another proposal?