Your math is wrong. 10% (cannot be automated) + 0.9% (can and has been automated) = 10.9%
What you do with that extra 89.1% you just liberated is unspecified. You're making an assumption about what happens to that extra time, I think you should be more explicit about it. You say:
"The part that can't be automated remains constant, however"
You need to back that up somehow. I am unconvinced that this 90:10 ratio is some cosmic law.
Also, you are buying into the original authors deeply flawed premise that work that cannot be automated is tedious and distasteful.
I respectfully completely disagree. You have it exactly backwards. The tedious and distasteful stuff is first in line for automation, not last. The stuff that cannot be automated is always the most interesting stuff, because it is the bit that requires you to engage your brain.
Example: automation can give you really really bad software design, but for good software design nothing comes close to doing it 'by hand' (or rather 'by brain').
What you do with that extra 89.1% you just liberated is unspecified. You're making an assumption about what happens to that extra time, I think you should be more explicit about it. You say:
"The part that can't be automated remains constant, however"
You need to back that up somehow. I am unconvinced that this 90:10 ratio is some cosmic law.
Also, you are buying into the original authors deeply flawed premise that work that cannot be automated is tedious and distasteful.
I respectfully completely disagree. You have it exactly backwards. The tedious and distasteful stuff is first in line for automation, not last. The stuff that cannot be automated is always the most interesting stuff, because it is the bit that requires you to engage your brain.
Example: automation can give you really really bad software design, but for good software design nothing comes close to doing it 'by hand' (or rather 'by brain').