[Ray20]

>if everyone's broke >nobody's spending money on stuff like contractors, mechanics, and other hardcore blue collar trades.

Why would this happen? Money is simply a medium of exchange of values that this contractors, mechanics and other hardcore blue collar trades are creating. How can they be broke, if Ai doesn't disturb their ability to create values and exchange it?

[forgetfreeman]

Customers that have funds available to purchase the services you offer and who are willing to actually spend that money are a hard requirement to maintain any business. If white collar and service industries are significantly disrupted by AI this necessarily reduces the number of potential customers. Thing is you don't have to lay off that many people to bankrupt half of the contractors in the country, a decent 3-5 year recession is all it takes. Folks stop spending on renovations and maintenance work when they're worried about their next paycheck.

[Ray20]

>who are willing to actually spend that money

Money mean nothing. It is simply medium of exchange. The question is, is there anything to exchange? And the answer is yeas, and position of white collar workers doesn't affect availability of things for exchange. There's no reason for recession, there is nothing that can hinder ability of blue collar workers to create goods and services, all that things that when combined is called "wealth".

Don't think in the meaningless category of "what set of digits will be printed in the piece of paper called paycheck?". Think in the terms, that are implied: "What goods and services blue collar workers can't afford to themselves?". And it will become clear that the set of unaffordable goods and services to blue collar workers will decrease because of the replacement white collar workers with AI, because it is not hinder their ability to create those goods and services.

[forgetfreeman]

> Money mean nothing.

You think so? Give me the contents of your checking, savings, and retirement accounts and then get back to me on that.

> position of white collar workers doesn't affect availability of things for exchange.

You appear to be confused about the concept of consumers, let me help. Consumers are the people who buy things. When there are fewer consumers in a market, demand for products and services declines. This means less sales. So no, you don't get to unemploy big chunks of the population and expect business to continue thriving.

[Ray20]

>When there are fewer consumers in a market, demand for products and services declines.

No, demand is unlimited and defined by the amount of production.

>You don't get to unemploy big chunks of the population and expect business to continue thriving.

I mean, generally replaced worker with the instruments - is the main way to business (and society) to thrive. In other words, what goods and services will became less affordable to the blue collar workers?

[forgetfreeman]

> No, demand is unlimited and defined by the amount of production.

Enough of your trolling, go waste someone else's time.

[sozforex]

When ~white collar [researchers, programmers, managers, salespeople, translators, illustrators, ...] lose their income/jobs to AI's -> lose their ability to buy products/services and at the same time try to shift in mass to doing some kind of manual work, do you think that would not affect incomes of those who are the current blue collar class?

[Ray20]

>do you think that would not affect incomes of those who are the current blue collar class?

Obviously it is affect. Supply of goods are increased and their relative market value are increased - how can this not increase their incomes?

[forgetfreeman]

The law of supply and demand dictates that when the supply of a thing increases it's value decreases.

[Ray20]

> it's value decreases

I mean yeas, values of consumed goods will decrease, so blue color workers will be able to consume more. That's exactly what is called increase of income.

[forgetfreeman]

My gut is telling me you're being intentionally obtuse but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt. To reiterate in detail:

AI is poised to disrupt large swaths of the workforce. If large swaths of the workforce are disrupted this necessarily means a bunch of people will see their income negatively impacted (job got replaced by AI). Broke people by definition don't have money to spend on things, and will prioritize tier one of Maslow's Hierarchy out of necessity. Since shit like pergolas and oil changes are not directly on tier 1 they will be deprioritized. This in turn cuts business to blue collar service providers. Net result: everyone who isn't running an AI company or controlling some currently undefined minimum amount of capital is fucked.

If you're trying to suggest that any notional increases in productivity created by AI will in any way benefit working class individuals either individually or as a group you are off the edge of the map economically speaking. Historical precedents and observed executive tier depravity both suggest any increase in productivity will be used as an excuse to cut labor costs.

[Ray20]

>This in turn cuts business to blue collar service providers.

No, it doesn't. Where's that is come from?

I mean, look at the situation from the perspective of blue collar service providers: what is exactly those goods and services, that they was be able to afford for themselves, but AI will make it unaffordable for them? Pretty obviously, that there's about none of those goods and services. So, in big picture, all that process that you described, doesn't lead to any disadvantage of blue collar workers.