Yeah, there's some of that.>>1384
Karl Marx, of being evil fame, came to the conclusion economic value derived from the human labor that went into products, factoring for the labor in training and education as well. Of course, you have to say *productive* labor, which loops a bit back on itself as productive labor is what gives something value. But in this mode, automation is a background. Yes some products have a trivial cost because their production is mostly automated, but people are doing something with their time and that will attribute value to some class of goods and services.
Of course, Marx was evil because he felt not everyone was being paid fairly for the value they created. It's not inevitable that using your life's energies to create value results in a steady paycheck.>automation of jobs increases unemployment to above 50%
I think most who are unemployed have become so involuntarily. In areas without much regular employment opportunities most people become self-employed. Of course, they are fighting for survival and would rather have a regular job. Take that pressure away, and I don't know. The upper crust leisure class, in some cultures, certainly don't see their unemployment as a problem (what are they, servants?), but America does not look at such a life honorably. In America, the rich and poor are to be hard working and creative.>Can people be happy even if they are essentially told by society that they are useless
I don't think so, no. Unemployed people can be happy. People who are told they are useless, in general, will be a bit sad.>small-scale farming and livestock raising be encouraged
Maybe. I'm a farm kid and hated it. You could probably look at it as a segment of the maker movement, though. Problem will be for all the maker hobbies you might have, that seems a pretty expensive one.