I think every discussion about this should focus on what exactly are the things that need to happen that no one would do if not coerced by either force or threat of destitution. How do we make sure those things get done and done well is a constraint of any economic changes we make to make things more fair. Also keeping in mind some of those things need to organize 1000s of people, how do you mine lithium in one place, and ship it across the world to 200 other places without financial incentives, how would you fuel the ships, load and unload them, track their location, repair and maintain them. I think it's pretty obvious things could be MUCH better and our current solution is very sub-optimal, but also that the problem being solved is very complex and the solution we have mostly works, but also there is a lot of work that is not particularly fulfilling or attractive to do, and especially not going to self incentivize anyone to do it well. Also it's clear markets are the best way to signal demand. So you really want to keep all of that, while getting rid of some of the biggest exploitative extractive inefficiencies in the current system.
If everyone had to perform an equal portion of the labor that's needed but nobody wants to do, the need for that labor would be minimized.
If Zuckerberg or Musk (and everyone else) had to pick up trash one day a month they'd spend their capital solving those problems (automating them away) instead of whatever the hell they think is so important right now.
The author is suggesting normalizing a 20 hour work week, and an approximate doubling of hourly wages for the majority of workers. (And continuing to reduce the hours worked per week until full employment is reached).
Work that is unattractive would presumably still be incentivized by higher wages.
