> But if we fully automate how to make and sell and deliver TVs and blenders and now I can get a 200" TV for $2 and a blender for $0.05 but now I don't have a job so I can't afford even a basic apartment what do we do with our society?

Delivery should be automated.

Rent would obviously crater as building housing craters too (robots making it, materials being extracted and manufactured by robots too). But again, it would still cost something (energy at very least and assuming energy is not free).

So I suspect that even if 100% is automated, we would still need little money to pay for the basics (food, shelter).

There is only so much land where people actually want to live. Governments put restrictions on what can be built. It might end up costing $20 to build a 100-story apartment complex, but if the government says buildings can only be five stories high or you have to only build single family homes it doesn't matter.

> It might end up costing $20 to build a 100-story apartment complex, but if the government says buildings can only be five stories high or you have to only build single family homes it doesn't matter.

And that's the point. The problem isn't caused by automation, it's caused by zoning restrictions.

> but now I don't have a job so I can't afford even a basic apartment what do we do with our society?

Apartments aren't land, they're buildings. Buildings can be made arbitrarily tall; if we built tall buildings we'd have more housing units than people long before we ran out of land.

So if there is a machine that can build buildings for free, apartments should be cheap. If there isn't a machine that can build buildings for free, get a job building buildings for money.

Not really worry about having enough land.

Even if 100% automated, there might still be a residual cost to building as it needs energy (assuming than raw material is free). I do not think that because the building would be not free, it would allow human to compete (too slow, inaccurate, etc.)