They owe nothing to Finland
That's your opinion, not theirs, and certainly not mine. As someone currently running a tech-startup myslef I see things very differently, but this is a minor point in this discussion so I'll leave that be and move on to the more important matter, which is that you are still dodging the issue.
labour and capital are always in competition, government oppression makes labour artificially more expensive, thus providing more incentives for automation that exist otherwise.
This is a total non-sequitur. In the mid-to-long term automation will surpass human workers with or without government 'oppression' (still the wrong word but whatever) because machines are more cost-effective at these jobs. It's simply not possible for a human worker to do for example invoicing or bookkeeping or any repetitive and simple jobs for faster and as well or better than a machine that can handle thousands of transactions in seconds and do so with considerably lower margins of error than a human being.
Even if I grant you to be correct for the sake of argument that government involvement is making this process faster, the overall advancements of technology which are happening and will keep happening mean that jobs requiring only little or no education will eventually be made obsolete by machines, as the technological advancements cannot be stopped barring a major planetary catastrophe.
Simply put, humans are incapable at competing effectively with machines when it comes to information processing, which means we're not in the same market as the machines from the point of view of the corporations. Machines and humans are not equal or equally effective as workers, which is why your supply and demand analogy fails and fails massively.
Again, I know from personal experience having been a part of the process that what now takes around 20 people to run invoice will soon be ran with machines and 3-5 people. This is cheaper and more effective. So please, stop deluding yourself into thinking that slow, error-prone humans are capable of competing with something that does the exactly same job faster, tirelessly and with a lower rate of error. The cost/benefit ratio of an automated system, even if the 20 people were paid HALF of what they used to be paid would still vastly be better. There is no price point at which the labor of these individuals is competitive with a system that has an entirely predictable output rate and a fixed - and relatively low (compared to operating profit) . cost. Machines work 24/7, don't take sick leave, don't complain etc. Once a system like that is set up and working (and like I said, these are not that expensive these days) there's no reason for any company to hire those 20 people at even a dollar per hour wage because the machine is simply a better investment value-wise.
There is no way for human individuals to compete with machines because of this in the long term.
As for education, firstly: bullshit. Education per student is cheaper in western countries where it is provided as public service instead of as a for-profit commodity. It's the combination of private, for-profit universities and private but government backed loans that's making it so ridiculously expensive in the US. When education is a necessity to be able to enter the labor market, it makes no sense to force people into debt just so they can even apply for a job.
But more importantly I was asking what do you imagine the situation to be in your 'ideal' future when, even if one takes debt, there's absolutely no guarantee that you'll get employed because a larger amount of people will be competing for a smaller amount of jobs, meaning the 'investment' one makes into privately acquired education is incredibly risk and has even more of a chance of ruining your life entirely if you don't get a job but are left with the debt and no means to pay it.
So really, what are the options for somebody born into a non-wealthy family in your 'ideal' society? Attempt to take a loan to get educated? If you don't get a loan because the bank figures you're not worth it (ie. too stupid to be likely to graduate or just too poor) you're fucked and have to go to the streets to beg for money from charities/the rich.... if you do get the money you're still in no way guaranteed to get a job, and if you do not, you're still equally or even more seriously fucked.
How does any of this work in your imagination? What do you plan to do with the probably over 100 million more unemployed people that will be a reality in the not so distant future? They cannot all get employed because there's no need for that much human labor in a world in which machines are simply better at performing most tasks so I was trying to ask what do you imagine these people do?
Are you saying it's just fine to let these people die off if some rich fucker somewhere does not want to feed them voluntarily? That it would be okay for all of these people to be killed the moment they don't act cogs in fa corporate machine? That, the moment an individual can be replaced by machinery and has no skills left with which to compete, he/she becomes worthless and deserves to die?
You think you can have a system that will promote welfare through oppression and not destroy jobs and move businesses elsewhere?
Jobs are gone anyway in the mid-to-long term, there's nothing the governments can do to make human beings competitive with machines anyone with half a brain realizes this already (which is for example why tech billionaires like Musk have started taking up the notion of universal basic income, because they understand the realities set forth by automation, being in the business of automation themselves). Once artificial intelligence arrives machines will outperform humans at any job, and according to some researcher human level ie. is not further than 4-5 decades away. Even if that estimate is off a hundred or 200 years, we will get there one day provided we keep on improving the information processing capabilities of our technology
I've been trying to hammer this home but you don't seem to be able or wiling to understand it: there is no way that paid employment will be the basis of most people's day-to-day life in half a century, because we've created technology making ourselves as workers inferior to machines. The age of man-driven manufacturing is closing.
Businesses need customers. If they have no paying customers, they have no profits. If 80 % of the people have no income because they have no job and receive no social benefits, they cannot afford to buy anything. And while the small elite class will no doubt use their wealth as they do now to by luxury items and so on, they will not be able to compensate for the gigantic dent in the econmy that will be left if you eliminate the basis of consumer demand, ie. the consumer class of people itself. Which means that unless some UBI-like system is implemented, 2 things will happen:
a) majority of people in the west will die lacking access to basic necessities
b) because of a) companies will lose insane amounts of customers, which will effectively destroy most companies
As a result you're left with a small bunch of people who've managed to hoard all the resources to themselves, essentially people/families who've so much wealth that it's inherited and increased by time and investing it. th 1-2 % of class that now owns over half of everything in US. The Waltons, the Kochs, etc.. these will be doing fine together with their friends/possible servants etc. Then there'll be a slim class of highly eductaed people who will likely work for aforementioned elite in the few positions that cannot yet be automated, rest will essentially be starved to death unless something is done.
You speak of the USSR in disgusting, but your own model is even worse and you don't seem to honestly realize it. You're envisioning a future in which the vast majority of people have NOTHING. No income, no jobs, nothing. This creates a vast underclass of people that will either turn to crime and violence in an attempt to keep themselves alive, or die.
Just like in the USSR, you're boiling the value of the individual down to the individual's ability to be productive (the only difference is productive for whom, in the USSR you needed to be productive for the state, you're saying one needs to be able to be productive to a corporation) and entirely neglecting the scientific/economic fact that we're fast approaching the end of human beings as factors of production, with or without state intervention.
So no, you've still not either understood the question/problem posed to you or you have and have decided to talk about unrelated things because you've realized you have no answers, and your model would lead to the slow and agonizing death of millions, making your vision of future america far more horrid than the USSR ever was.