Turns out, you said it yourself:

I've said it myself at much greater length:

The problem is the gist of the article is "we don't naturally need to work, therefore a future where few people work will be fine." It's a thinly veiled argument for UBI, as these kinds of articles tend to be.

The reason I raised the points that I did is that UBI articles generally ignore math in favor of (A) the milk of human kindness (B) the bounteous explosion of productivity in the face of automation without really examining the socioeconomic questions at the heart of "some people work, some people don't."

We're not hard-wired to work. Duh. As a species, though, we are easily bored; nobody puts in a 40-50 hour week and then spends all weekend in the garden because they're trying to save money on vegetables. "Work" then is kinda squiggly, as _refugee_ kinda tried to point out.

Here's the thing, though. Productivity has been going up since the invention of agriculture. Leisure time has not.

Sure - I'd rather file TPS reports than work in the salt mines but as society grows increasingly complex, our ritual engagement with that society increases as well.

If we did not believe in the ritual of "work," our society would not advance. I believe that we're about to see challenges to our definition of "work" but I also believe that those who opt out will starve. That's a different argument than the pursuit of minimalism. Minimalism, after all, has traditionally been about the luxury of eschewing physical goods while asceticism has traditionally been about the purity of eschewing physical goods. Both are choices...

...and if the world decides you're an ascetic, you aren't. You're just poor.