I think I get what you're saying. I have to be quick writing this comment since I go to work this morning but I'll do my best to make sense.

The discussion reminds me of a short story I've read (if you want to read it I can try to find it) which envision what the world might look like should the trend of automation of labor continue to a certain point: one version in which almost no one gets to enjoy the fruits of automated labor, and another where we progress past capitalism and every person enjoys the benefits of minimized labor necessity. Obviously the former is a very dystopian future, and without serious course correction the one (I think) we are currently heading towards.

The latter made the case that in such a society, each person would be able to pursue what actually matters to him; so creative pursuits, music, art or whatever else; science and research, whether theory and philosophy or empirical study; or just whatever hobbies someone finds meaningful, except they're no longer just "hobbies" contrasted to the slog of dozens of hours of meaningless work, because the overall labor necessity per person is maybe a handful of hours a week, if that. I know which version I'd rather live in.

It's kind of why (hot take incoming) I thought Yang almost sounded like a Marxist without actually consciously knowing or meaning it, because he was the only candidate who even talked about technological automation and the consequences it's having on working people in the 21st century (ie he correctly identified the problems, even if his solutions weren't exactly visionary.) It's interesting to me, because automation is exactly what Marx's theory was written in response to. The Industrial Revolution was characterized by the sudden and extensive automation of various types of labor, and the social and economic upheaval thereof.

Anyways I don't really have a point but I thought it was relevant to the discussion.