I must say I'm not sure if "society having you covered" is quite the issue here. Yes, being a Finn, I can attest on having most of your bullet-point list, as relating to the case at hand, covered. But it doesn't necessarily solve the knee-jerk reaction some people are having for these sorts of innovations.
It always strikes me a bit odd when someone from SV comments on societal questions. People from different backgrounds and different walks of life don't obviously share the same worldview, of course those people well off have a harder time relating to those lower on the economic spectrum. But somehow it feels almost like there's a physical discontinuum between the "tech" people, and other people, who don't breathe and live their work, who are just happy to keep whatever job that keeps food on the table. I believe a big part of this is that most folks, contrary to tech, don't have to actively learn on the job. That's why the common answer to start re-educating yourself isn't really a viable alternative for most average people in their 30s-40s.
Don't get me wrong, I think it's very much unfortunate that societal issues get in the way of progress that in the long run will make everyone better off. I'm just saying that the things you have listed aren't necessarily the only factor in solving this problem. It's like considering people and their lives only as a function of income and expenses, when there are really a host of other factors also at play here.
What we're doing now is a whole lot of nothing in the US; we've only recently been able to admit that this whole thing might be a problem, but are far behind in terms of actually doing anything about it. In your Finland, you are able to at least move forward from something resembling a solid political and cultural foundation; we're nowhere near that here.
The items I've listed would help us actually move forward to help people survive and navigate the new world: to give them individual agency, autonomy, and safety in a world where lifetime employment is gone; traditional unions are weak and/or are protecting jobs that may themselves be automated / cannot be created in numbers high enough to make up for massive job losses; the free agency/gig/Precariat economy is growing; and jobs are being automated away (even if Google has decided to step away for now.)
Identity factors, habits, location/mobility, etc. are all very important. Policy is meant to help provide a baseline for existence, not act as a panacea.
There will have to be logistical changes: many people will move to urban areas, as the UN predicts 2/3 of the world will live in by 2050, which are easier to provide services to, have high-quality educational institutions, and obviously what's left of many of the jobs.
There will have to be habit changes: those who want to compete will likely have to embrace autodidactism-for-life / training-for-life (free college / cheap online learning makes this one much more palatable.)
There will also have to be the hardest changes of all: cultural ones. We'll
have different classes of people, many of whom will not be engaged in traditional work. Treating the latter as lazy slackers or parasites that deserve to starve will have to go, first and foremost.
We'll have people who still work, and who do much better than those that don't. With proper tax policy and others that I've outlined, we'll hopefully be
able to avoid massive wealth gaps / concentration that could lead to
massive social upheaval. Some will be managers, developers, business owners,
etc. Others will still be in the gig economy, but will exist within it
while working from a much more stable base. Being on a "zero hours" contract or working as an Instacart shopper will be much less punishing if you can always
afford a place to live.
We'll have the "socializing/partying" class that may just get drunk, do drugs, and hang out with their friends, etc.
We'll have people who do spend their time mostly consuming media
(video games, movies, news, etc.)
We'll have people who just sit around learning new stuff because they enjoy
doing so; the idea of a lifetime of academia becomes much more appealing
when you're not perpetually on the verge of starvation.
We'll have people who create music, art, social media posts, and image memes
full-time without worrying about paying the rent.
We'll have people who finally get to play sports or make handicrafts like
they've always wanted to.
The biggest adjustment we'll have to make: people will be required to find their own meaning if they can't work, and so cannot derive their identity from their job as they have in the past. Jaron Lanier's "multiple overlapping hierarchies of status" will become ever more important (from both sides: creation/participation and consumption.)
"There will have to be habit changes: those who want to compete will likely have to embrace autodidactism-for-life / training-for-life (free college / cheap online learning makes this one much more palatable.)"
Your comment reminded me of Star Trek: First Contact when Lily asks Picard about the lack of money and he said we work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity. Ever since that movie I was always fascinated with that unseen part of Star Trek canon where somehow the world figured out how to finally stop warring and competing and made human progress a first priority. I'm thinking we'll be in a few more wars (over resources) before we get there. Especially if our man-made climate change screws everything up.
I truly hope these kinds of changes will happen. The thing is, in the best case scenario it might be a somewhat natural process. For example what you are saying about the attitudes towards lazy people and progressive taxation. I'd definitely see it going to get better as time moves on, as the best jobs seem to unequivocally get progressively more pleasurable for those who want to pursue them. Then there would be no incentive to get fed up about the slackers, as your work gets closer to truly doing what you love for a living.
Also, makes me think a bit differently about companies like Uber etc. They are essentially enabling a part of the mechanisms you're talking about.
It always strikes me a bit odd when someone from SV comments on societal questions. People from different backgrounds and different walks of life don't obviously share the same worldview, of course those people well off have a harder time relating to those lower on the economic spectrum. But somehow it feels almost like there's a physical discontinuum between the "tech" people, and other people, who don't breathe and live their work, who are just happy to keep whatever job that keeps food on the table. I believe a big part of this is that most folks, contrary to tech, don't have to actively learn on the job. That's why the common answer to start re-educating yourself isn't really a viable alternative for most average people in their 30s-40s.
Don't get me wrong, I think it's very much unfortunate that societal issues get in the way of progress that in the long run will make everyone better off. I'm just saying that the things you have listed aren't necessarily the only factor in solving this problem. It's like considering people and their lives only as a function of income and expenses, when there are really a host of other factors also at play here.