Who is this "we"? When I translate what you say into plain English, what I get is: One in twenty people will grow food and be forced to give it to everyone else, whether they want to or not. I agree that is an outdated ideology, yes. But the fact that food needs to be produced somehow is not.
> we can't find jobs for everyone
Again, who is "we"? Whose job is it to find jobs for everyone? Why is that necessary?
> Automation will make it worse
Automation can make things cheaper and cheaper; that's why it has continued to increase. That's making things better, not worse.
What makes things worse is pretending that products and services, whether produced by automation or any other means, will magically get distributed to where they are needed, or that "we" will magically decide correctly how that is to be done. That is indeed an outdated ideology, but unfortunately many people have not yet gotten the memo.
What will make things better is admitting that products and services have to be produced, and then traded for other products and services, in order for people to get the things they need. So the more efficient that process is, the less effort it will take for people to get the things they need, and therefore the easier it will be for them to do so.
If the paychecks stop coming and nothing replaces them, consumers stop buying and you get a recession or worse. The key is to keep the money flowing from companies to consumers in some other way. The clever bit with the "Great American Share" idea is that the money gets collected via dividends instead of taxes.
No, the money flow for Social Security is payments that were previously made by the recipients. At least, that's how it's supposed to work. It's only because our government has raided the Social Security trust fund for decades that current payments have to be paid from tax revenues.
> How stuff gets produced isn't magic; it's much the same as today's economy.
You didn't include production anywhere in your money flow. Where does it come in?
