There is a rather popular, as well as soundly founded, belief

>>53709911
I'd say for the jobs where the robots cant reach.
In my setting robots aren't small and/or articulated enough to reach the bowels of spacecrafts for inflight repairs, so we have humans braving the depths to perform maintenance on damaged components, said damage caused by space parasites.

Particularily smart robots are illegal, as they have a nasty habit of turning homicidal. That leaves dumb robots for labour and people for challenging work.

bumped for interest

>>53709911
Humans are the go-betweens, helpers, multitaskers and versatile workers.

>>53709911
There'll always jobs too dirty, dangerous and low-value to expend a robot on.

I don't. A spaceship may have only one or two humans on it, everything else is done by machines. Machines run almost everything, humans only direct the robots and conduct research. Humans are few and far between, you aren't likely to see another one in your day to day affairs unless you expressly want to meet one in person, and because of poor socialization those situations are stilted and awkward. Eventually the humans no longer procreate at all, and the ever loyal machines lie in wait as the last of their masters die, slowly turning to rust expecting another instruction

>>53709911
>as well as soundly founded
No, it's not. Most of these theories are being expounded by scientists and technologists, not economists who actually understand how labour and technology interact.

Every new technology changes the employment and skill mix, but it does not invalidate labour or make workers as a whole obsolete. Technical advancements are tools which complement workers.

This hysteria about "AI REPLACING ALL OUR JOBS" is misplaced and ill-informed.

>>53710437
says you with no source.
please. link to this "economist"

>>53710437
OP here, I here this a lot but it's never backed up by those who claim it.
If expert systems can produce music, write reports and articles, replace organic muscles, etc.
What work is there left for humans after a certain point?

>>53709911
>How do you justify organics still having jobs in Science Fiction settings where you wish to maintain an economic system similar to real world ones now?

Could be that the Powers-That-Be or their AI overlords decided that it's in the best interest of society to make sure people have jobs to keep them occupied.

Look at modern Japan: they make all these bullshit jobs like "sign holder" so people can be employed.

>>53710523
>OP here, I here this a lot but it's never backed up by those who claim it.
>If expert systems can produce music, write reports and articles, replace organic muscles, etc.
>What work is there left for humans after a certain point?
I read a lot of Shelly Palmer articles about the coming AI conundrum. All signs seem to point to us (the capitalist West) having to radically overhaul our economy in the next 10-30 years because of all the automation that's going to drive up unemployment rates.

Eagerly awaiting the day when we go full grimderp and start adding contraceptives to the water supply.