The problem with such legislation is that lawmakers
take this same view, ie, that it's a simplistic philosophical
argument. It imagines the desired consequences, but it
it's not based upon analysis of the range of real world
consequences.
- How many jobs will be replaced due to increased
pressure to automate?
- How much will prices rise?
- What will be the effect of higher prices?
- Will the market contract, leading to job loss.
I don't think it would necessarily affect automation, as that seems a reality which will be more and more prevalent in the coming years. My main point here is that, if it's a job which requires a human being to do it, then that human being has rights (other than the right to simply quit). Regardless of how menial or lowly the job might be, if it needs to get done by a human, then that human must be treated with respect, dignity, and with scrupulous regard to their human rights (which would include fair compensation).
Automation will certainly make a difference, and there may be job loss and price adjustments. But it may lead to a larger percentage of idle people, as there simply won't be enough work to go around for everyone. But presumably, all the necessary work to keep society functioning will still get done. What will happen to all these extra, superfluous people?