Great, you cite Joel Spolsky. Good for you.

But you didn't address a single point that I brought up beforehand.

The original point, if I recall, was that mechanical labor will, at some point in the future be capable of performing the labor done by humans right now. The fact that machines have replaced human labor alone is not a new and certainly not revolutionary in its own right. The revolutionizing aspect of said robotic labor, is the fact that it will widely replace current human labor due to its innate level of sophistication. Think of it: robotic plumbers, teachers, mechanics, doctors, etc. The list goes on and on.

You said that it would make everyone wealthier. I rebutted, stating (quite historically I might add) only those that own the machines will benefit, at least for a time, as they are in fact, private property. Everyone made redundant by mechanized labor (of which there will be many) will need to find new employment. This is fine if a labor market exists to absorb the masses of the newly unemployed, as was the case in the mass exodus and subsequent conversion of the peasant farmer to the city factory worker. But one doesn't exist--at least, not yet.

You propose, as a solution and social necessity, that people will become artisans or instructors--people that produce their own goods or services for sale though some sort of market place. I pointed out how it is historically regressive and naive to think that such an arrangement can operate on the mass scale of manufacture that we currently have. People in this scenario are essentially relegated producing to "complementary" frivolities for society, rather than producing essential goods and services. Never mind that with such widespread mechanical labor, extremely cheap and abundant high-quality goods can be made in a factory.

> I am simply saying that machine made goods are complementary goods of hand made goods. When the complementary product of hand made goods' price becomes cheap/commodity the hand made goods demand grows

I am familiar the concept of complementary goods in neoclassical macroeconomics. Ice cream cones are a complementary good in relation to ice cream. The sale of ice cream and cones have a strong positive correlation. I understand that.

What we are talking about though are not complementary goods. Complementary good are just that--they complement other goods, to produce an amalgamated good that fulfills some need better than it's component parts.

> "machine made goods are complementary goods of hand made goods"

This is wrong. How does a hand-crafted spoon complement a factory manufactured bowl better (which is a subjective term anyway) than a factory manufactured spoon? The answer: it doesn't. I think what you are actually referring (vaguely) to is consumer preference. Only when mass manufactured goods are available cheaply and abundantly in the first place, do consumers begin to seek out the "quaintness" of handmade goods. This is how merchants of such goods differentiate their stock from that which came from a factory. As they may put it, the former was "made with care", while the latter, "rolled off of the assembly line", so to speak. Etsy and other markets like it are niche purveyors, merchants of that which is quaint. That is why they will continue to remain niche.

For whatever reason, that fact that something is hand-made seems to be synonymous with quality in your mind. Hand manufacture works for bowls and knit sweaters, but hardly scales for other, more complex goods. How, pray tell will the same system work for the manufacture of goods like cars, microprocessors, vaccines, etc? Will those kind of goods be sold through etsy.com? No. Never. There was a reason that interchangeable parts came into being--they could be manufactured on a mass scale with the kind of precision only a machine could produce.

The only way what you are describing above will work is if private property is abolished, e.g. the manufacturing segment of society--the factories--is owned and directed by the whole of society, not by the hands of a few capitalists. Those factories would, by definition, have to produce the essential goods necessary for society to function as a precondition. With such a basis then, the economy you describe would could function, as it only deals in secondary goods. As it stands now, the televisions, cars, furniture, etc, we all consume are produced not for human need, but rather for sale as commodities on the open market. The anarchy of production would have to be subjugated. But with such a scenario, why even have the secondary "handmade" market in the first place?