I'd like to point out that you didn't actually refute any of my points that gig work, for low skilled workers, is actually a step down. I'm not saying that to be a dick, but I would like to say that as of right now, we're having a conversation about the future employment of people in my socio-economic class, so I'm a bit emotionally invested here.

So, on to your new points.

We have a current pool of low skill, low paying jobs. That pool is disappearing. That does not mean that there will not be other jobs of that type that will open up.

There is also no garuntee there will be new jobs opening up and since there are articles out there discussing how automation is going to erode jobs in white collar industries such as law, banking, health, and government (and that that's already happening, see internet banking and ATMS), there will still be even less jobs down the road. That's not even counting the fact that automation has already eroded the number of well paying, full time jobs in retail and warehouse work. Suffice to say, my confidence level in your theory couldn't be lower.

Shit, any of those people could go pick the fruit that is rotting in farmer's fields across the US right now, because the migrant workers have been chased away. Now, that type of work isn't for everybody, but some people will do it.

Some people will do it. Those people are desperate, know the work is extremely temporary, is back breaking, and grueling. Let me ask you an honest question. Which would you rather have? A part time job, in an air conditioned building, where you're paid $9 an hour to work all year round scanning boxes and talking to customers feeling relatively secure in knowing that job is gonna be there one week after another with bosses and a company you're familiar with and can somewhat trust or a temporary two week, immediate hire job, in the grueling heat, with people you don't know or trust (that includes whether or not they'll pay you fairly or screw you) where after you're finished you're left where you started, jobless. There's a reason the second kind of jobs don't have a lot of takers, and it's not about work ethic or gumption.

We need to preserve shitty jobs, because there are some people who need something to do that doesn't take any skill or mental capacity.

First of all. They're not shitty jobs. They're jobs that are viewed as shitty because people with college educations and six figure incomes feel better about looking down on as many people as they can. To a lot of people, they're just jobs, and while many hope for better and want more, many are quite content with what they got.

Now are you going to champion legislation that prevents 7-11 from automating the cashier job? Or gas station attendants? Or grocery store clerks? Is your legislation going to penalize Amazon's new grocery store here in Seattle that has no employees? The penalties have to exceed the additional profits Amazon is making from not having to pay $15/hr plus bennies to cashiers.

Who said those people have to be tenured? Your theoretical legislation just says the jobs can't be automated. People can still get fired for being irresponsible and there will still be people lining up to take those spots. That said, some people argue any corporate fine is just a tax under a different name. Sometimes I think that statement is pretty compelling.

Now the employees filling these jobs basically have tenure. They don't have to perform at even the most basic level, because their job is federally protected. Now the Amazon grocery store (and all others, as well) become the worst customer experience ever, full of employees who don't give a shit, and don't have to.

Dude. Every day there's statements on the internet that say low wage employees don't give a shit. How much worse could it get? Right? Besides. You're wrong. Retail, food, and warehouse employment is like employment anywhere else and there's a teamwork dynamic involved and there's pressure from above to perform. There are numbers to hit from turn around times to sales goals to customer satisfaction metrics. Companies still have to compete with each other, so they're going to implement programs to keep employees compliant.

The reason why Walmart can pay $6.25/hour is because that employee is being supported by federal programs (welfare, food stamps, medicaid, etc) to the tune of $8.75/hr.

If Walmart doesn't pay the living wage of (call it) $15/hour, someone else IS paying for it.

Except A) just earlier this year Wal-Mart committed to increasing wages for all their employees, part time and full time alike, and B) companies are willing to pay what they're able to get away with. In regards to part B, don't you think a big culprit here is the erosion of the values of collective bargaining (and this is coming from a guy who's actually quite wary of unions) and the government itself not ensuring that the minimum wage is a livable wage? Then, and I know I've said this before, but can you believe the way that Obamacare is implemented that it actually creates an incentive for companies to have LESS full time employees? Chances are, there's tons of legislations and regulations out there that serve as a double edge sword and I'm willing to bet my left shoe that more often than not, it's people on the bottom rungs of society that get cut deepest because really, lets face it, they're not respected.

If Walmart doesn't pay the living wage of (call it) $15/hour, someone else IS paying for it.

Yeah. I mean, sure. I'd like Walmart to carry the whole ball, but if it's between them paying part of it or tax payers paying all of it . . .

And I'm OK with supporting those who need help. I like the social safety net, and wish it was more comprehensive. (UBI)

DUDE! People are fucking fighting hard against universal health care and you think something like UBI is realistic? Seriously. I know we both don't live in the same America, but come on.

It sucks that low-wage jobs are going away. I agree. But that pressure on the market, and that availability of low-skilled labor will generate other market opportunities that we can't imagine right now. Any time there is a surplus of something, the system will find a way to make money from that surplus. It always happens. We need to let it happen, and we need to ensure these people have a working social safety net to protect them from the down times, that isn't just a corporate giveaway.

There is zero garuntee that there are magical new jobs around the corner. And if they're gig jobs like you're proposing, once again, it's a step down. Honestly? It's all about supply and demand. If there's a large supply of workers and a low supply of jobs, workers will be worth much less, jobs will be worth much more, society is gonna put the hurt on a lot of people.

To put it another way, aluminum used to be more valuable than gold until someone found a way to quickly, easily, and cheaply process it. Now we use it to wrap our leftover hotdogs in.