[f6v]

> what sorts of new economic models will be needed to help everyone thrive in a post-scarcity world

What sort of new economic models did we come up with to help everyone thrive in a post-X world? Like, food production is really a solved technical problem. We can feed anyone on the planet if we wanted to. Another example: we could put everyone who's homeless into some sort of a house. Have we done that yet?

[Marha01]

Food production is indeed a solved problem in most countries (we are almost post-scarcity when it comes to food), which is why obesity is a much bigger issue than hunger today. Hunger is present pretty much only in conflict zones. I fully expect such issues in conflict zones, even in AI post-scarcity world.

Housing is definitely not post-scarcity today, building a house is still very expensive, not to mention the limited availability of land zoned for housing.

[LunaSea]

> which is why obesity is a much bigger issue than hunger today

Obesity is much more related to the type of food than the quantity.

Many developing countries have obesity issues due to scarcity of fresh and healthy food.

In some places coca cola is cheaper and / or more available than drinking water.

[asdff]

Hard to imagine that a 24 rack of coca cola is actually cheaper than an iodine tablet or a couple drops of household bleach or you know, boiling water.

[rubyn00bie]

It can be when you don’t have access to boiling water, bleach, iodine tablets, and/or the water you have access to is extremely contaminated with chemicals because of pollution.

[asdff]

If you can find burnable material you can boil water

[squidbeak]

> Hunger is present pretty much only in conflict zones.

How do you explain the existence of food banks in peaceful first world countries?

[StilesCrisis]

Without trying to sound crass, food banks _are_ the reason we don't see people dying of starvation in first world countries. If people need food, a food bank will give it to them no questions asked.

[felixgallo]

Unfortunately this is not just precarious, it's extremely vulnerable to changing political conditions. Many of the food bank services in my state have lost significant funding owing to the use of words like 'women' or 'black' in their grants, which were duly grepped for and shut down.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Cuts-t...

Civilization can't rely effectively on systems that are this fragile.

[StilesCrisis]

> Civilization can't rely effectively on systems that are this fragile.

That's American politics in a nutshell. We've spent 250 years assuming scruples and common decency would be sufficient.

[nradov]

Is it not sufficient? Americans give more to charity than citizens of any other developed country. The arguments that all food aid should be routed through government bureaucracies are entirely unconvincing. I'd rather donate to organizations like Second Harvest than pay higher taxes.

https://www.shfb.org/

[OttoVonBizark]

The fact food banks exist suggest over all food scarcity is solved in that specific culture. - if it wasn't there wouldn't be any spare food for a food bank

[xyzzy123]

Food is allocated using a variety of mechanisms in peaceful first world countries, primarily money but also via government assistance, kinship, friendship, community, etc.

At any given time many people have problems with one or more of those systems. Money is easy to run out of because it's used for everything, the government can be slow and difficult, relationships can fray, people can be isolated, etc. Food banks exist as a backstop for when the regular means of allocating are not working.

The problem isn't "scarcity" per se, it's more of an allocation thing. Who has a claim on enough food to stay alive? Everyone! But what foods can they claim? How much? What specific channel / institution (with associated allocation rules) will distribute it to them? What are the conditions and controls? etc.

Allocating things can be difficult. An allocation mechanism with no controls will see fraud, waste and abuse. Even when an institution is willing to give things away no questions asked, there are (often invisible until you think about them) conditions like "please don't claim huge quantities and resell what we're giving you, that would be unfair to others".

It's also interesting to think about the fact that you can't fix food scarcity in general by simply giving hungry people money, because money is too fungible.

[cornholio]

It's circular to say "it's an allocation problem". Yes, that's the entire point: we're post-scarcity on food supply and yet, as a species, we can't guarantee the allocation of a livable baseline to every person.

So, it's reasonable the same "allocation problem" will plague the AI economy: some will "thrive" and get to control the output of the auto-factory, some will get nothing.

[fragmede]

https://www.marketplace.org/story/2025/11/26/how-a-market-sy...

There's a fascinating points system food banks use on the back end to allocate which food goes to which bank.

[cassianoleal]

> It's also interesting to think about the fact that you can't fix food scarcity in general by simply giving hungry people money, because money is too fungible.

Is that a fact? Do you have references to back it?

[jandrewrogers]

The widespread existence of secondary markets for SNAP benefits, which convert subsidized food for poor people into cash, carries this implication. This is pretty normal in some poor communities and that cash is commonly diverted to various vices. Some malnutrition is a consequence of this. Adding friction to the conversion of welfare benefits to cash is a feature.

You can't force poor people to spend cash on proper nutrition and a minority of them don't. It isn't a moral judgement but an observable fact. A lot of policies around welfare are targeted at trying to prevent this minority from slowly killing themselves in public.

[rubyn00bie]

> The widespread existence of secondary markets for SNAP benefits, which convert subsidized food for poor people into cash, carries this implication.

I think “widespread secondary markets” is carrying a lot of implications… yes, people do sell food stamps for cash, and yes it technically happens over a large area (the US) but it’s far from a significant problem within the population that uses food stamps. Most estimates I’ve seen range between 2-5% and they all tend to overestimate (like it literally says that in their methodology).

I think it’s also bizarre to assume they’re trying to kill themselves by doing so, and thereby imply the proceeds are for things like drugs or alcohol. FWIW—- I’ve know folks who sold their excess food stamps, to help pay for their cell phone or utility bills. I’ve know folks who buy them because they’re poor and they are wholly unable to get the caloric needs with their monthly allocation. And yes, I’ve also seen some folks who are likely selling them to buy drugs or alcohol… my point is it’s naive to assume it’s always for self-harm.

If anything, considering how cheap food stamps are as a program for the federal budget— we could absolutely make food free for literally everyone in the US. That would absolutely curb the secondary markets[1] as there would no longer be a market.

[1] I suppose some sort of export of shelf stable food to other countries would pop up, but that requires an international logistics network and is easier to prosecute and fight than an individual outside a grocery store.

[cassianoleal]

> You can't force poor people to spend cash on proper nutrition and a minority of them don't.

Sure on a large enough cohort, there will always be all kinds of behaviours. This is true, as you have observed yourself, regardless of whether the benefit is paid in cash or food.

[pixl97]

I mean it's pretty straight forward that this won't fix all hungry people as some portion of said hungry people are addicted to drugs in the extent they'll starve. That in itself may be solvable by things like free drug clinics (drugs are cheap, it's prohibition that makes them expensive).

And for the most part it's not the drug users that we're worried about starving, it's their children at home that tend to be a bigger issue. Hence things like free school lunches do a big service to ensuring they get enough to eat.

[ratelimitsteve]

As part of the solution to the hard problem of food: distribution.

[hgomersall]

There's plenty of food, just not the political will to make sure everyone can afford to buy it.

[overgard]

Housing scarcity is highly artificial because people are treating houses like speculative assets. And the NIMBYs don't help

[cornholio]

A baseline of housing - for example, a Japanese style capsule or ultra-tiny home, that you can lock and store your belongings safely - costs close nothing. Of course, nobody would want the hobo-hotel in their neighborhood, but it has nothing to with scarcity.

> the limited availability of land zoned for housing.

A limited area of land is zoned for housing because those with the power to expand it are already housed. This explains how scarcity is created, not that there is any intrinsic scarcity.

[bloppe]

It's a limited area of desirable land zoned for housing. You could build all the tiny homes in the world in bum frick nowhere, but the unhoused would rather be homeless in a big city for various reasons. I probably would too.

[cornholio]

This is another reframing of the problem. What makes the area desirable is previous investment society has made there, to the benefit of some and the exclusion of others; the scarcity is created by political choices, not intrinsic.

[dinkelberg]

> obesity is a much bigger issue than hunger today

Hunger is acute suffering, mostly by people who cannot change anything about it, while obesity is more of an epidemiological problem and can in principle be avoided by eating (or in the case of dependent persons, feeding) less.

[turtlesdown11]

> Hunger is present pretty much only in conflict zones

https://www.fao.org/interactive/hunger-map/en/

[seltzered_]

I recommend doing some reading about the inputs modern agriculture depends on (e.g. chemical fertilizer) then thinking about the issues they're associated with beyond an anthropocentic frame (e.g. ocean dead zones).

[allears]

Post-scarcity? Sure, if you live in a first-world country and are upper middle class or higher. These tech-bro pundits have a very limited world view. The basic essentials of life are very scarce for millions and millions of people, and AI will probably make that worse, not better.

[Marha01]

Why should AI make it worse? Can you point to any other important technology that historically made people in poor countries even poorer? Technological progress generally lifts people from poverty in the long run. There could be issues caused by disruption of established systems in the short term, though.

[watwut]

> Can you point to any other important technology that historically made people in poor countries even poorer? Technological progress generally lifts people from poverty in the long run.

It is very long run. Industrial revolution was disaster for average worker for example. For that matter, all the tech that allowed chattel slavery made whole class of people poorer and significantly worst off.

The accumulation of power and money by smaller group of people means loss of power by poorer people. Those with power then use the power to their own benefit while poorer people dont have that option and become even more poor or worst off.

[overgard]

Uh, I think threatening the work of a large swath of humanity would make a lot of people poor? The rich historically have never shared the wealth until they're forced to.

Just as an example (ironically from google!): "Google co-founder Sergey Brin has spent $82 million to oppose California's proposed wealth tax."

This is a man that has more money that he could ever hope to possibly spend, and he's spending an absurd amount just because the mere thought that he might benefit from the society he lives in and should contribute back to it apparently infuriates him.

[bloppe]

I support progressive income tax and very high capital gains tax. I do not support wealth tax. There are very sound economic and technical arguments against wealth taxes. You can oppose the wealth tax proposal while supporting higher taxes for the rich.

Sergei's wealth is mostly tied up in Google stock that has appreciated a lot. A higher capital gains tax would soak him without unduly distorting the economy and incentivizing capital flight out of CA.