I never proposed that such work should be disallowed, I offered a critique of promoting such schemes while ignoring the qualitative aspects of life which are very important, even to the disabled. So there are two possibilities to be weighed up here: firstly, the current situation in that there are fewer jobs for the disabled, who need to be supported through state assistance, but such an arrangement may offer more time to pursue intellectual liberation, and secondly a possible future in which the disabled must adopt some jobs like being robot waiters or live in poverty. If the question is related to social programs then I argue this is not at all a false dichotomy.
It's curious I'm being downvoted in my original comment for arguing for a more human approach to jobs and labour in society.
On HN, one is not supposed to comment on being downvoted:
"Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading."
Past attempts to exclude political discussion from HN reflect a belief that, somehow, what Silicon Valley does can be fully understood without recourse to political thought.
The reality is that the HN community harbours readers with a wide range of political views, and those readers can downvote people with whom they disagree with total impunity. It's not good for the quality of debate, to say the least.
It's curious I'm being downvoted in my original comment for arguing for a more human approach to jobs and labour in society.