• markr@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Everyone will be working multiple shitty service jobs that robots are not cost effective to automate. Our miserable wages will be just sufficient to keep the wheels on the cart from falling off.

  • Pasta Dental@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    The real answer is no one. They will quickly realize that at the root of the economy are the regular people, and since the economy is a cycle, when you cut off a part, the cycle doesn’t work anymore.

    People (doomers) here are saying businesses and rich people will, but this can only, work for a limited time, because either the products will shoot up in price since only the rich can afford them, or the businesses won’t be able to sell their products, so they can’t buy new things, which means no more revenue to the shareholders.

    Think of all the companies that live from b2b models, when you look closer, they are all at some the suppliers of b2c businesses, except, maybe military companies. That company that makes the lithography machines (asml) only sells to other businesses such as tsmc. Tsmc also only sells to other businesses, but they sell to businesses that sell to consumers.

    • The Stoned Hacker@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      i don’t think prices will shoot up, it’s just the wealthiest will have accumulated the absolute most amount of wealth they possibly could. Everything would crash but they would own everything. That’s of course if AI can fully replace us and produce everything that humanity needs practically forever but behind a paywall.

  • morphballganon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Don’t think of people having money as an on-off switch. It’s a gradual shift, and it’s already started, before AI was a thing. AI is just another tool to increase the wealth gap, like inflation, poor education, eroding of human rights etc.

  • Arn_Thor@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    That, my friend, is the problem for whichever schmuck is in charge after me, a C Suite executive. By then I will be long gone on my private island, having pulled the rip cord on my golden parachute.

    • Grimy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      It sounds like the beginning of a cast system, I can’t imagine it not being abused in our current economic system. It’s also essentially welfare + a bit extra so you can actually live on it.

      How will this deal with home ownership and paying for your kids education? And then your kids end up bjeing stuck in the same situation they were born into with absolutely no wajy forward. It’s already like this in a sense but UBI is very likely to amplify it imo.

      • Steve@communick.news
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        It’s the same capitalism we have now; Accept the bottom income level, isn’t zero anymore.

        Who would be in what Cast?
        Where do you draw the lines?

        • Grimy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          My main fear is how this will affect renting and house ownership. Rents will probably go up as UBI comes into play and what’s left won’t be enough to save for any kind of down deposit. I doubt UBI will be enough for monthly mortgage payments in any case.

          It’s already very hard to move past the renting stage, I imagine it will be impossible once on UBI.

          The cast would be comprised of land and business owners. Again, it’s already almost the case, I just think UBI without careful considerations would amplify it.

          • Steve@communick.news
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            Rents will probably go up […] and what’s left won’t be enough to save for any kind of down deposit.

            It’s the same capitalism we have now.

            Whatever it does to home and rent prices, as well as inflation generally, would be temporary until the markets adjusts. That can be softened by slowly phasing it in, maybe $100/m each year. The standard supply, demand, price balancing act at play. This time with the income floor not being at $0.

            • Grimy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              I completely agree with you. UBI is overall a good idea, I just think UBI alone won’t be enough to properly deal with massive job loss and certain aspects of our economic systems are going to greatly reduce its impact. It’s a very complicated problem and we have some serious decisions to make, it’s further complicated by the fact that the best solutions will probably end up dealing a blow to the billionaire class and big corporations and they will most likely fight tooth and nail to keep the status quo.

    • Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Depending on the details of the system… Who cares?

      Sure, we can have a couple investigators working on gross abuse of the system, but we spend more money fighting social security and disability claims than it would cost to just pay every request.

  • EABOD25@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    I’m an optimist, so I’ll believe one day we’ll have a utopian society like in Star Trek. I ask politely you don’t criticize me too harshly

    • ZephrC@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Hey, that’s a reasonable thing to hope. The flip side, of course, is that I’m hoping I don’t have to live through Star Trek’s idea of how the 21st century goes. They definitely got all of the details wrong, but I’m afraid the vibes are matching a little too well.

      • Infynis@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Hey, we’ve still got 2 months to the Bell Riots, and DeSantis was talking about putting all the homeless people in Florida on an island

    • bobs_monkey@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      While I agree, I’m skeptical that we’ll see any meaningful advance toward that end in our lifetimes.

      • sunzu@kbin.run
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        It will get a lot worse before it gets any better

        The hand has been played and trend has been set, I don’t see anything coming close to a reversal, short of gereatric nepo babies dying off but their replacements don’t look any better…

        Sucks to suck

              • sunzu@kbin.run
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                2 months ago

                Hoping for something like that without taking direction action today is naive.

                Direct action won’t fix shit unless critical mass does it, so also got to spread the word about the fuckening we are enduring, most people are really not aware of the conditions on the ground beyond their personal experiences.

    • abbadon420@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      I think it’s as relistic a future as the complete destruction of mankind, but your point of view makes life a lot more enjoyable. Here’s a nice quote to back it up:

      “There is nothing like a dream to create the future” - Victor Hugo

  • TheFeatureCreature@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Capitalism is all about short-term profit. These sorts of long-term questions and concerns are not things shareholders and investors think or care about.

    Further proof of this: Climate change.

    • BlackLaZoR@kbin.run
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Funny thing is that capitalism accidentaly solves global warming same way as it created it - turns out renewables are cheaper than fossil fuel, and the greed machine ensures the transition to more cost efficient energy sources

      • Pelicanen@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        The problem is that the previous accumulation of capital has centralized a lot of power in actors who have a financial incentive to stop renewables. If we could hit a big reset on everything then yes, I think renewables would win, but we’re dealing with a lot of very rich, very powerful people who really want us to keep being dependent on them.

        • abbadon420@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          They are only slowing us down though. They really cannot stop the change, because solar power is simply cheaper than oil. Once governments stop subsidizing oil, the big oil companies will be done for if they haven’t innovated by than. That is also one of the reasons why they are slowing us down, so they can buy more time to innovate and remain on top with a new, green business model.

          I hope all the big oil bosses get locked up for crimes against humanity, but I think they’ll just change their business model into something green and exploit us in some different way.

          This is why they say “they’re too big to fail”.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        turns out renewables are cheaper than fossil fuel, and the greed machine ensures the transition to more cost efficient energy sources

        Cool, when is that going to start happening? Because I only see a handful of electric cars and I see a whole ton of coal power plants.

      • abbadon420@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        This is not “capitalism accidentally solves climate change”. This is the effort of many people pushing for more development in green energy until it was able to be produced at a cost efficient way. From there, capitalism took over, as intended. For green energy to be be feasible, we needed it to get picked up by the capitalist machine, because the capitalist machine has all the power and infrastructure in place to make it into a succes.

        I predict that the same thing will happen with large capacity, small size home batteries once they become economically feasible. They are on the brink of becoming profitable and once they do, they will become a huge success and help reduce energy waste.

        Same thing goes for fusion, but we’re a long way off making that economically viable.

        • BlackLaZoR@kbin.run
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          This is the effort of many people pushing for more development in green energy until it was able to be produced at a cost efficient way

          I think this oversimplifies it a lot. There were a lot of different actors involved - I’m sure a lot of development was coming both from the semiconductor industry, and from state funded research, but in the end, the greed machine (aka capitalism) takes care of further researching and scaling it to the global level.

          Also it’s not like there wasn’t any money in that business years ago - even back then solar was commonly used as a remote power source in mobile applications (calculators, camping and so on). Also NASA, but this was purely state funded

    • Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      These sorts of long-term questions and concerns are not things shareholders and investors think or care about.

      Well that’s not true at all. The vast majority of investors are in it for the long run.

    • Blubber28@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Yup, economics are all about “LiNe mUsT gO uP!!!” It’s infuriating as all hell for people that can actually see further than the tip of their own nose.

  • BlackLaZoR@kbin.run
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    That’s economic ignorance - the more AI is used to produce goods, the cheaper they are - so you have to work less to fulfill your needs.

    • piyuv@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Hell yeah! People in 50s and even 20s worked 40 hours per week to feed a family of 4! Now we can do that by working much less than… wait, not even 2 working parents safely feed a family of 4? Even with all the gains in productivity?

    • soratoyuki@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Exactly this. That’s why groceries have dropped in price the last decade as cashiers are replaced by automated self checkouts. /s

  • marcos@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    AI owners will.

    And if you then go around wandering “oh, but not every AI builds something those few people want”, “that’s way too few people to fill a market”, or “and what about all the rest?”… Maybe you should read Keynes, because that would not be the first time this kind of buying-power change happens, and yes, it always suck a lot for everybody (even for the rich people).

  • ✺roguetrick✺@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    That’s why private property is so cool. You can even enslave sentient AI to work for you because you inherited things. Capital rules all as long as it has more firepower. Though I bet the AI would be better at organizing a strike than we are.

    • xavier666@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      I remember in Interstellar, the Blight caused huge starvation among the poor causing them to riot. The government asked NASA to drop an orbital bomb on them but NASA refused, which caused the government to remove funding for NASA and close it publicly. It was just fiction then but it’s looking a bit grim now.

  • Zahtu@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Ever heard of the everlasting sustainable war? https://ghostintheshell.fandom.com/wiki/Sustainable_War

    If robots generate all of productivity and human labor is no longer needed, the economy would not be able to sustain itself. Instead, in trying to cope with the unneeded human labor and to ensure continued productivity, the only area where productivity would be ensured is by means of war using human resources, namely destroying things in order to be rebuild, thus generating a sustaining feedback loop. The rich will get richer and everyone else will only be employed as soldiers in a continuing war economy.

    Even though this is a sci-fi concept, i believe it’s not a stretch to say we are headed to this direction.

    • BallsandBayonets@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      We’re already there, in a sort of way. Products aren’t built to last, aren’t built to be repaired. Buy a new phone, computer, washing machine, every year! You wouldn’t want the social embarrassment of not having the latest gadgets! And if that fails, we’ll just release a patch that prevents the irreplaceable battery from lasting a full day.

      Plus after computers made it so one person could do the job of 100, entire new industries popped up to do meaningless jobs shuffling digital money around. Some of the most comfortably-paying upper-working-class jobs are entirely pointless. But it keeps educated people from questioning the system. As long as they get a cushy paycheck twice a month they’ll happily make another B2B web 3.0 cloud-based KPI tracking analytics platform and not question if their job is meaningful.

    • Etterra@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Well I mean Orwell hit on the same concept with 1985, with the major powers just rotating who was blowing up who at any given time in order to keep the proles in line.

  • Hello_there@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    If all the money is hoarded by the rich, who is going to spend money to make the economy run?

  • soratoyuki@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    The vanishingly small amount of people that will be unfathomably rich in a privatized post-scarcity economy will give us just enough in UBI to make sure we can buy our Mountain Dew verification cans. And without the ability to withhold our labor as a class, we’ll have no peaceful avenue to improve our conditions.

    • BlackLaZoR@kbin.run
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Why are you obsessed around wealth of other people? You should be more concerned about your own income rather than some super wealthy CEO

      • Ech@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Because, as OP points out, wealth disparity is a zero-sum game. Being concerned about the super wealthy is being concerned about our own income.

        • BlackLaZoR@kbin.run
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          wealth disparity is a zero-sum game

          Except it’s not. That wealth isn’t cash in some bank account, in most cases it’s a stock in companies these people built from scratch - Bezos made Amazon, Gates Microsoft, Buffet Berkshire Hathaway and so on

          The wealth of super rich is allocated in places that produce goods and services

      • soratoyuki@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Because my labor creates their super wealth, and because they’re destroying the planet to maintain it.

  • tonyn@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    When there is a scarcity of resources a population will shrink to sustainable levels. Right now there are too many people to share the scraps left from the billionaires hoovering up all the capital. People will stop having kids, others will die homeless, and population will decrease just as happens in any population of animals experiencing scarcity.