[Steve_American]

I suggest the the answer to the current situation is a new law in the US to reduce the normal workweek to 20 hours and double* all the workers pay at the same time.
This would make it easy for a worker to work 2 jobs at the same time. If he/she loses one then he/she isn't totally unemployed. And a 20 hour job will pay enough to make normal ends meet.

So we need a rule that larger corps. must hire an unemployed worker instead of one who already has a job.

Mainstream economists make a big deal out of how markets can react to absorb any shock. So, markets should be able to adjust to this shock.

The central idea here is the adjust the economy to the new fact that automation has reduced the amount of work there is to do to keep the economy going and living standards high so that there are not enough jobs to provide everyone with one that pays a living wage. Exactly like when the normal workweek was reduced to 40 hours during the Depression.

.* . Current part time workers would get less of a raise because they would not get a lot less hours of work like a 40 hour a week worker would. But, they would get something like 50% more.

Yes, I know it's radical. It's just a thought.

[SSDR]

It wouldn't be a problem unless if there's not enough wealth that society wants or needs. If labourers and workers can get all of the things that they need or want to be done (such as maintenance, construction, farming, warehousing, plumbing, medical services, etc.) within 20 hours for each working person per week, then this wouldn't be a problem. If they can't, then people would have money, but they may not have things to buy as much as society needs, such as homes or cars.

For example, if every auto assembly line worker works 20 hours a week, but there isn't enough cars for each person that wants or needs one, then in this scenario, all of the double paid workers could afford a car, But There Is NO Car To Buy for every worker who wants or needs a car, and can afford one. So it would depend on what people would want, what is needed, how much is needed, and how efficient production is. Meaning production would be fast paced, no breaks, lots of automated assistance (which is available in our times due to technology being advanced enough and many manufacturing positions are being automated), and NO mistakes. It would vary overall.

But if the majority of the workers work at least 40 hours a week, two or more jobs (one job being livable so that if one loses one job, they can live off the other for a while at least), it would not be efficient because the workers would Have to know how to do TWO jobs. Even if a worker has two jobs that are nearly identical, an example being working at a Fiat assembly line for 20 hours, and working at a Volkswagen assembly line for 20 hours a week, each of the similar occupations would to some degree, STILL be different from each other. It is far more efficient if each worker sticks to one occupation, so that they know how to be as good as possible within their occupation.

Yes a 20 hour a week job can pay enough, but will there be enough to buy? That is one of the bigger questions in this scenario.

[Rancid]

I suggest the the answer to the current situation is a new law in the US to reduce the normal workweek to 20 hours and double* all the workers pay at the same time.
This would make it easy for a worker to work 2 jobs at the same time. If he/she loses one then he/she isn't totally unemployed. And a 20 hour job will pay enough to make normal ends meet.

So we need a rule that larger corps. must hire an unemployed worker instead of one who already has a job.

Mainstream economists make a big deal out of how markets can react to absorb any shock. So, markets should be able to adjust to this shock.

The central idea here is the adjust the economy to the new fact that automation has reduced the amount of work there is to do to keep the economy going and living standards high so that there are not enough jobs to provide everyone with one that pays a living wage. Exactly like when the normal workweek was reduced to 40 hours during the Depression.

.* . Current part time workers would get less of a raise because they would not get a lot less hours of work like a 40 hour a week worker would. But, they would get something like 50% more.

Yes, I know it's radical. It's just a thought.

I'm not sure how this would work in the context of the global labor force. Would this not make companies want to offshore even more jobs and technology?

[Steve_American]

Finally some replies.
You both have good points.
Efficiency is over rated. For example, how efficient is it to have the workers supporting 9% of the workforce that are unemployed or stopped looking? I think the 2 jobs would be different. Not working in the same industry.
I don't like the current "race to the bottom" that free trade forces on the workers of America. I favor tariff protection as a result of my attitude. Those who don't favor protection of other jobs but protection for theirs are evil.
America was a great nation in WWII when it made enough stuff to equip the Br., Fr., Can., and Aust. armies; and 20% of Russia's. It ought to be able to make most of its own stuff now.
OTOH, the poor nations need a market for their food and manufactured products, so they can pay for their imports and pay back any loans too. It is a balance, not a dog eat dog situation.
Meanwhile we need a Green New Deal to save humanity from AGW.
My OP was about how to deal with automation taking so many jobs.