I have sometimes wondered why, in an age of increasing automation, many societies still have "high" employment. And by "high" I mean over 80%. Why, for example, have not an increasingly smaller number of jobs been restricted to a smaller elite.
For example, if there was an island with one apple tree and an orange tree. And person (lets call him Adam) owned the apple tree and person (Bob) owned the orange tree. And suppose further that the only thing people needed for life on the island was apples and oranges then this island would theoretically support only two people and everyone else would starve.
But is this what would really happen? Imagine there were two men (for the sake of argument this is a patriarchal island!) who owned these trees. And there was also women on the island. Then what would happen is that these two men would want to compete for the females. To show who is most powerful they would employ butlers and servants and engineers to build red sports cards by giving out their apples and oranges.
In the end the island would end up with full employment with a near equilibrium balance between people employed by Adam Inc. and Bob Inc.
Thus even at a time when we have robots, there should theoretically be nearly full employment, as men (or women in a matriarchy) will employ people for all sorts of purposes as a status symbol even more than owning the best fleet of robots.
What do you think of this argument that there is a relation between sexual selection, competition, and male lust for power, that is a drive that tends to keep employment high. The implication being that if you restrict these things then employment will fall. And what would the counter argument be that despite this there will be a lack of jobs in future societies?