You're asking the wrong question. Here's the real one:
Who's going to pay for everyone else to have free time?
That's really what you're implying here: It's an underlying theme stemming from the assumption that we must have an economy based solely on the output of individuals.
What if all economic output comes from machines doing all the work? Why would people clean toilets or wash dishes if they didn't have to? Wouldn't their time be better spent on their hobbies (e.g. art)?
Regarding machines, we already have that example set in stone. The explosion of computers in the 90's had many thinking we'd have to work less hours because so many office tasks would be finished far more quickly. Of course that didn't happen; the efficiency gain just meant we piled more work on every person who's job was made easier by a computer. In cases where there wasn't enough work to keep the existing number of employees busy, we laid people off and had fewer people working for the company performing the same amount of work (or more).
The number of hours expected of an employee is hardcoded for employers. Whether it's 20-something hours or 40 hours depending on your region, this is essentially a fixed number that will probably never change.
I honestly have no idea how it would work or even if it could work. For all I know as wealth concentrates towards the owners of automation our society could collapse and we all end up stuck in a perpetual agrarian society with no easily accessible energy source or metals to ever get advanced technology ever again.
The only way out that I see is something like Guaranteed Basic Income (GBI) along with socialized medicine. Everyone gets a handout from the government that's enough to live a decent life. Food and shelter could be free; which would make sense if agriculture is 100% automated (why let all the profits and control be saddled into only a handful of people?).
Then everyone that wants to can compete for making more money via their passions and hobbies or, for the few that can do it, actual work/employment.
Who's going to pay for everyone else to have free time?
That's really what you're implying here: It's an underlying theme stemming from the assumption that we must have an economy based solely on the output of individuals.
What if all economic output comes from machines doing all the work? Why would people clean toilets or wash dishes if they didn't have to? Wouldn't their time be better spent on their hobbies (e.g. art)?