For most of human history, very few people had "money" as we understand it today. It is only since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution in the late 18th century that the foundational equation of modern economics was developed:
It used to be "If you want to eat you have to work" but this changed to "If you want to eat you have to have money" combined with "If you want to have money you have to work". A subtle but powerful change.
The emerging robotic economy will be so productive that very few people will have to "work" in any traditional sense. But currently we have no way to rationally distribute the fruits of that productivity to those who don't have "jobs". This is the Star Trek paradox. Their society wanted for nothing but nobody had "money" or "jobs" in any sense we'd recognize today.
Not having a job doesn't imply idleness. People will still have "careers" in the sense of lifetime pursuits, it's just that technology will enable such pursuits to be decoupled from the need to survive (or thrive).
If you want a Nobel prize in economics, figure out a convincing solution to this paradox that doesn't collapse into some form of dystopia in short order by allocating all of the robotic output to an elite oligarchy that runs a planet-wide welfare state of peasants (essentially the New World Order's vision of the future).
As someone who for years had a career automating manufacturing processes, and believes in automation and simplification at my very core, I do it all the time and to be honest most everyone does.
Is it easier to measure once, line all of them up and drill the holes before you assemble? Or is it better to drill the one and assemble that then go find out where you left the tape measure? Hmmm, what was the size?
The boogie man isn't in finding the easiest way, robot or whatever, it's in wild assed competition at the lowest possible levels competing with huge money interests who monopolize everything they see that is good.
Free enterprise and capitalism must come from bottom up, not top down.