[My_Name]

Not many people see that the end result is that when ordinary people stop earning money, and stop buying products, all the money will be used purely for B2B transactions.

Money will still exist, but people will not see hardly any of it. To break out of being just a person and start a business you will still need money, but be unable to get any.

Thus, the endgame is revealed. You don't need to form a dictatorship, you don't need to have a war, you just need to remove all real choice from people, and then you have complete control over what they are able to do by simply making it cost too much. There will be a firewall between ordinary people, and the people who own businesses where all the money sits.

We see the start of it already, when just two individuals have a combined wealth on the order of a trillion dollars. That inequality is not going down, only upwards.

Sure, you may get universal basic income, have a nice house, car (food, clothing etc of course) but there will be a massive air gap between what you could obtain in a lifetime and the minimum you would need to move from that situation into the world where the real money is.

Corporate saving rose by nearly 5 percentage points of global GDP between 1980 and 2013, and since the 2000s the corporate sector flipped from net borrower to net lender in many advanced economies — the "corporate saving glut." Much of it just piled up as cash reserves. Currently, 10–15% of GDP per year flows into corporate retained earnings never to leave. Think about the long term ramifications of that for you and your purchasing power.

AI didn't make this situation, it is just speeding it up.

[mplanchard]

> Sure, you may get universal basic income…

This is the only point I disagree with. Given human history, it’s much more likely that you wind up in a slum, dying of dysentery. Or the third generation trapped in a trailer park cooking meth to get by. Or, maybe, if you’re lucky, being a cleaner, chauffeur, or cook for one of the wealthy.

[hammock]

We know what it looks like. We call it post industrial society. The rust belt, decrepit mill and mining towns, shrinking cities, etc.

[itake]

> That inequality is not going down, only upwards.

This was talked about 15+ years ago when I was a young student. I saw the writing on the wall and made it a priority to live below my means and aggressively invest.

Unfortunately, many of my friends think I am crazy for not "enjoying life" more... We shall see what happens I guess.

[ahoka]

The point was it does not matter if you only eat rice and beans for your whole life, no amount of salaries will get you into the "club".

[wallst07]

I think the point is that it is his OPs opinion and they cannot read the future. Nobody here can, so the reply has just as much weight as the original.

So saving and living below means is a great strategy either way.

[itake]

The FIRE movement says otherwise.

My high tech salary, aggressive investment strategy and saving enabled me to not need to work again.

I'm obviously not in the top 0.01%, but you don't need to be.

[patentatt]

And all it cost was 15+ years of life?

[Jensson]

It doesn't cost life to eat modestly and live smaller than you can afford, you live life while doing this. Many think the best part of their life was when they were young and poor, its not a bad life to have low costs so you can live stress free.

[DangitBobby]

Unless you think that the rich experiences of life are what make life worth living, that money grants you access to some of those richest experiences, and that you are more able to fully appreciate and incorporate those experiences into your personhood at a younger age.

[eudamoniac]

I'd advise that person to change their attitude about that, because it's stupid and inhuman. Otherwise you get the absurd statement that average people in most countries, billions, a normal married guy in Vietnam, none of their lives are worth living.

[DangitBobby]

No, that doesn't follow at all. Having less access to experiences of value is not remotely the same as having no value.

[itake]

to add, SWE salaries are already significantly higher than everyone else.

I had the typical expense-level of a family of four, but I was living as a single adult.

[itake]

I enjoyed every moment of it :).

I've traveled to 63 countries, I've had wonderful relationship with people across the globe, and love coding/building services.

I spent ~3 years living in Vietnam, having a more comfortable life than most Americans, while retaining US income levels.

My remote job enabled me to live with my parents longer, earning California-level pay in Florida, helping me save more money and have more time with them.

[yumraj]

What’ll happen to the investments when the markets crash?

[chii]

> Unfortunately, many of my friends think I am crazy for not "enjoying life" more

then, in 30-40 yrs time, those same friends all want gov't bailouts for their pensions, and higher taxation of people like yourself, to fund it (because, you know, you're rich enough to be able to spare it of course!).

[einpoklum]

And rightfully so.

By the way, GP could very well be investing in the AI behemoths, or some other 'friendly' corporations.

[suncemoje]

What do you invest in?

[itake]

I've always been heavily invested in the technology industry and companies that seem popular on HN.

Currently my quantum computing investments have done quiet well. In the past, Google, Apple, and Cloudflare were big winners for me.

Although, over the long term, my performance with more volatility and less tax efficiency barely better than $SPY (mine: 16.28% vs spy: 15.71% annualized return). Schwab says benchmarks an "aggressive, but diversified" portfolio (more bonds and international) to have 12.57% annualized.

[suncemoje]

Similar portfolio here then; I’ve been a bit more defensive the past 1-3 years though, as “even to me” recent tech growth and valuations seem frothy…?

[itake]

You’re not wrong but don’t forget TINA…

Historically, tech comes out on top, even with the higher volatility.

[maxerickson]

Your analysis assumes our current politics where money roughly equates with power. That won't hold if people feel controlled.

AI of course also has the potential to concentrate power, but people aren't just going to ask the accountants who should be in charge.

[Jensson]

Money buys drones, drones are the future of power.

[bombcar]

The practical difference between a select few owning everything and governments owning everything ends up being practically minor. The key is disperse true ownership (which is NOT just collective ownership via the standard shares; your share in Meta gives you as much control of that as your vote does the government).

[joe_the_user]

Currently, 10–15% of GDP per year flows into corporate retained earnings never to leave. Think about the long term ramifications of that for you and your purchasing power.

That part is just an artifact of the tax system. The aim of corporations is to return excess earning to share holders. But because dividends are taxed, corporation essentially return their earnings as high share prices.

If it weren't for this, many more corporations would be hit by corporate raiders eager to unlock those retained earnings.

But overall, yeah, there has a flood of profits that have piled up.

[louiskottmann]

History repeats itself : it ends in blood. Always does.

As the concentration of power happens, the people who concentrate it become bigger and bigger targets.

There is no alternative to wealth distribution.

[Falimonda]

> We see the start of it already, when just two individuals have a combined wealth on the order of a trillion dollars. That inequality is not going down, only upwards.

Isn't there an inconsistency here? You've set up this narrative of businesses as being the only entities with money (wealth?) but then singled out two individuals.

Also, how do calls for equality of wealth address the inequality in contribution of value and efficiency to society and the economy at large?

[wolttam]

Businesses will still be owned or at heavily influenced by individuals and it is those individuals that will be able to steer how those business’ capital is allocated (including towards themselves).

[Jensson]

That is true until the owner dies, at that point you will have zombie AI companies that continues even though everyone associated with it is dead.

[Falimonda]

Would you rather AI steer the capital?

[wolttam]

At this point in time I doubt that AI is ever going to escape the control of the humans with capital, and those humans will just use it as a tool in order to amass ever more capital.

The hopeful outlook is that AI is also a lever for the working class. It's why I think local models are important.

[palmotea]

> Isn't there an inconsistency here? You've set up this narrative of businesses as being the only entities with money (wealth?) but then singled out two individuals.

You're nitpicking. When an individual is a billionaire, they're basically a business entity.