with or without one child policy, because without, you can expect a drastic growth in childbirth as well? but fun aside, can someone make a study about the question: in a world where all basic needs are covered for everyone, how many peoply have to work to keep the system going? i mean, food, healthcare, shelter and so on have to be provided by someone and i doubt robots can cover everything yet.

I bet this "study" was made by millennials XD

Obviously it's going to magically appear in the air right? That's obviously what all the studies that have been done on this concept assume. 

This is how my thought process works:

*Weird Idea is stated* Oh wow that's weird, hmm would that work. *Various studies show it doesn't work* Yeah, thought so. *Various studies show it does* Oh wow that's interesting. 

Your thought process:
*Weird Idea is stated* Fuck that *Various studies show it doesn't work* Duh obviously. *Various studies show it does* Fuck that, nope. 

Don't you know how much Hillarity got paid for a speech?   They just want working people to pay for their bribes to the masses for their votes. 

As a rich person, no thanks.

Do you really think enough new jobs will be created to compensate for the tens/hundreds of millions lost? What innovation is going to spark this boom? Cuz unlike previous industrial revolutions' ability to enhance human input, the autonomous revolution is all about replacing it. The number of jobs created making, maintaining, and updating these machines pales in comparison to all of the jobs in numerous fields that these machines will eliminate. Is the answer just 'make-work' like that mindless elevator operator, then? Is that progress? 

We know stealing other people's money 'works', it's just extremely inefficient. It's better for the economy if people provide their own products/services to make $1000 instead of stealing it off somebody else.

Yes.

Studies apparently show it isn't. In fact various studies show people are more likely to work even harder. 

If it were the case the US would be losing 350,000 job positions a month, right now, on average. Even more, I assume, since one would expect the first years of automation to be faster, given all the low hanging fruit, and since there are still advances to come on computing until 2025 or so, when we run out of die shrinks and even die stacking. Even now, the complexity of neural networks and algorithms matches and demands more of hardware, after all. Instead, even, most of the countries on the technological forefront, such as the US, Germany, Japan and South Korea have all some of the lowest unemployment rates on the world.

Not to mention it varies from country to country, with most developed economies outside the US standing to lose less to automation even according to those predictions. That include countries with a shrinking population and workforce, such as Japan, where, you might imagine, automating large swadths of the workfore over the upcoming decades might seem a Heaven-sent gift to fill all those vacant spots and keep their economy from shrinking.

These negative outlooks pop up from time to time since the industrial revolution. Time and time again we severely overestimate the capacities of our own machines and underestimate the adaptability of the market. Hell, Azimov in the fifties said that in the year 2000 the only job left would be of the psychiatrist, to take care of the unemployed, obsolete human masses thanks to robots.

In fact, the current 2025 labour outlook for the US is many new job spots to open until then, specially on health care, so I wouldn't take seriously the Silicon Valley equivalent of "no arctic icecap by 2020!" alarmists.