lol. Money is used to allocate resources. Most people sell their time to earn money. So if people don't have job anymore, theyre screwed if they don't have money, and they're screwed if they get a "universal income" or something. Why? Because everyone gets it, so how do you allocate scarce resources?
Suppose 1000 people live in a town where half own homes and half rent. A home comes up for sale and assume all renters want to own a home. If every renter is receiving the same income, who gets the house?
In today's world, whoever pays the most money. In this future world, maybe still the same (so who has the saved the most and can pay cash), or maybe alternative payments / bartering on the side to sweeten the deal.
Either way it's not this utopia where suddenly everyone can afford scarce resources - the price will just go up to remain scarce
It's not as much "lol" as what's implied, you have to read between the lines a bit. Their example is Qatar, a tiny elite supported by slaves. And in the brave new world we'll have a tiny elite supported by AI slaves. Left unsaid is what will happen to those for whom there is no place within the tiny elite.
There are two possibilities: mass extinction, or the new elite isn't tiny. Everyone hopes for the latter and fears the former.
Suppose 1000 people live in a town where half own homes and half rent. A home comes up for sale and assume all renters want to own a home. If every renter is receiving the same income, who gets the house?
In today's world, whoever pays the most money. In this future world, maybe still the same (so who has the saved the most and can pay cash), or maybe alternative payments / bartering on the side to sweeten the deal.
Either way it's not this utopia where suddenly everyone can afford scarce resources - the price will just go up to remain scarce