It's a double edged sword.
One one hand it creates jobs for people who aren't smart enough to create their own income, However as inflation goes up, the workers want to be paid more (understandably) to pay their bills, but there comes a point where businesses then find automation to kill the human factor to offset those raising wages. However by automating things and making them more efficient instead of cost of living coming down, it creates greater profit instead for the owners of these businesses.
But how do you quantify greed? If someone took a huge risk to make something successful should they be punished for it? At the same time if that person fails, they loose everything. On the flip side if a bank is failing then the government just bails them out, how is that fair?
You almost need some sort of tax penalty and reward system in the sense that if you use human labour your tax is A, if you use machines it is B, unless you are able to demonstrate that humanity has benefited from the automation and reduced cost of living has been passed on to the general consumer. If all you did was reduce your expenses to gain higher profits, tax them higher.
At the end of the day, I don't think any model is perfect as it depends on who is in power at the time how much corruption and back handed deals get done. Sadly greed exists everywhere in the world and if there is people dumb enough to exploit that they will.
