A discussion post questioning how people could improve their financial situation in a post-work society where AI automates most jobs and everyone relies on UBI, highlighting concerns about scarce goods, wealth concentration, and a permanent economic class system.
Something I’ve been thinking about with all the talk about AI replacing jobs and eventually creating some kind of post-work society. Let’s say AI and robotics eventually automate 90-99% of jobs. Most people are no longer employed, the government provides everyone with UBI, and the massive efficiency gains make everyday goods and services incredibly cheap. Sounds great on paper, but what happens to everything that AI can’t make abundant? I’m talking about beachfront property, desirable real estate, rare cars, fine art, luxury goods, and anything else that has a finite supply. There are only so many houses overlooking the ocean, so many rare Ferraris, and so many desirable places to live. If everyone suddenly has more disposable income to spend and free time, wouldn’t demand for these things explode? What stops people from hoarding them or driving prices through the roof? And here’s my bigger issue with the whole concept. At least in today’s economy, there are opportunities to improve your financial situation through hard work, education, career advancement, entrepreneurship, etc. Obviously, nothing is guaranteed, and plenty of wealthy people inherited their money, but the opportunity to work toward a better lifestyle still exists. What happens when that opportunity disappears? If I’m receiving the same $5,000 monthly government check as everyone else, and there’s pretty much no labor market left, how exactly am I supposed to work toward something better? What if I want a nicer house, a rare car, or to live somewhere desirable? Am I just permanently stuck with whatever lifestyle my government check can afford? Meanwhile, the people who already own real estate, businesses, investments, and AI infrastructure would continue hoarding wealth. Their children inherit those assets, while everyone else has very little opportunity to catch up. We’re pretty much creating a permanent economic class system where your financial future is basically determined by what you or your family owned before AI took over. Pretty fucked up. I understand the argument that AI could make necessities so cheap that everyone enjoys a relatively comfortable standard of living. But there’s a difference between having your basic needs met and having the freedom to pursue the lifestyle you actually want. Maybe I’m missing something, but I rarely see this discussed when people talk about how amazing a post-work society would be. Getting the tech oligarchs to share their wealth is one thing but if the government is somehow convinced the UBI is the answer, I feel like living in a world with no opportunity to grow would be awful too. If human labor becomes economically worthless, what realistic path does the average person have to build wealth, move up economically, or afford things that remain scarce? Genuinely curious how people envision this working, because I don’t see how UBI alone solves it. Sorry for the long post and appreciate the responses.
The article discusses the economic implications of AI reducing human labor, questioning how consumer demand will be sustained and exploring alternatives like UBI or cheaper goods.
A discussion questioning the steelman case from AI optimists like Nick Bostrom and Elon Musk that a leisure society awaits as AI and robots render human labor obsolete — and how people would actually pay rent, food, and healthcare without jobs or money.
The author argues that AI and robots taking over most jobs could lead to a better world with universal basic income, freeing people from mandatory work and solving many social problems.
An opinion piece arguing that fear of AI replacing jobs is largely fear dressed as moral outrage, and that humanity will eventually adapt to AI-driven automation, possibly through UBI or a new economic model.
A discussion post questioning the economic and political feasibility of Universal Basic Income (UBI), arguing that the math and incentive structures don't support its implementation, especially at a global scale.