Will AI lead to a basic minimum wage?
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
They won’t, that’s the plan, culling the population of the Earth.
tigerred59
Verified User
All the great minds are warning the US and other nations, that AI is a dangerous tool to embrace and yet, the US is moving at a speed pace to bring AI to every corner of the nation with these Data Centers popping up every where. Just like we ignored the global warming warnings of the past, this too will become yet another moment in our history where we failed to listen. Company that use AI will find no one left to pay the bills or buy their products because all will be unemployed or on some form of welfare. But you can not penetrate the greed of Jews and gentiles when it comes to money money money and mo money.
I think mass hunger leads to rebellion.
Tbird19482
Verified User
Well like Henry Ford said over a hundred years ago, I need to pay my workers enough money so they can buy my product.
If my workers can't afford to buy it then who will.
And if you have no workers earning money then you won't be able to sell your product, and AI doesn't buy a dang thing.
When the rich control governments, rebellion will be put down with violence.
cawacko
Well-known member
Basically every major technological revolution has had claims of pending mass unemployment, and so far that predictions have all been wrong.
Anecdotally, in modern times, in my industry of CRE the internet was going to wipe out brokers. On the residential side it was going to eliminate realtors. Did that happen? Nope. But it did change both industries and the need to adapt around the new technology.
If AI eliminated most jobs we'd have much bigger problems than simply redistributing money. But ultimately history suggests these technological advances will change jobs more than putting much of the population out of work.
Last edited:
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
No, it won't, but it likely will lead to increased use of welfare, at least in the short term.
It is true...and multi-millions will be out of a job.
Great.
That is why we build machines of any kind, including AI...to put people out of a job. That means they do not have to earn a living.
It is a blessing, not a disaster. We just have to change a few things in order to make it work...and I suspect AI will force us to do that.
Grok, will AI lead to a basic minimum wage?
No, AI is unlikely to "lead to" a basic minimum wage (or more precisely, universal basic income/UBI) in any deterministic sense—though it will intensify debates about it.
AI and automation will disrupt labor markets, but predictions of inevitable mass technological unemployment requiring a permanent cash floor for most people overstate the case based on history, economics, and available evidence.
Societies will adapt through productivity gains, new jobs, policy tweaks, and human ingenuity, not a single policy panacea.
Past waves of automation (agriculture mechanization, factories, computers) displaced specific roles but didn't cause long-term structural unemployment.
Employment-to-population ratios rose over the 20th century despite massive shifts; new sectors emerged (services, tech, creative industries).
Studies like David Autor's "Why Are There Still So Many Jobs?" highlight that technology complements human labor in non-routine, creative, social, and adaptive tasks.
AI differs because it's general-purpose and cognitive, potentially automating more white-collar/knowledge work faster (e.g., McKinsey/Goldman Sachs estimates of hundreds of millions of jobs affected).
Yet recent data shows AI-adopting firms often grow faster and hire more, not less. Jeff Bezos has noted AI could create labor shortages by unlocking problem-solving capacity.
Short-term displacement is real (layoffs in routine coding/support roles), but long-term net effects depend on complementarity, entrepreneurship, and demand growth from higher productivity.
Proponents (Andrew Yang, some AI leaders) argue AI accelerates inequality and "technological unemployment," making UBI essential for stability, retraining, and consumption (who buys AI-produced goods if wages collapse?).
Pilots show short-term benefits: reduced stress, some entrepreneurship/self-employment shifts, better child outcomes, and modest or neutral employment effects in many cases (e.g., Kenya GiveDirectly study; Alaska Permanent Fund).
Critics and data push back:
Pilots are often small, temporary, targeted, or during atypical periods (e.g., COVID), limiting generalizability to a permanent national UBI.
AI won't "lead to" UBI as destiny.
It amplifies choices: societies embracing dynamism, innovation, and human capital will thrive with higher growth and voluntary adaptation.
Those prioritizing redistribution without growth risk stagnation.
The core challenge is accelerating education/retraining so people augment AI, not compete against it.
Optimism grounded in evidence favors abundance over managed decline.
grok.com
No, AI is unlikely to "lead to" a basic minimum wage (or more precisely, universal basic income/UBI) in any deterministic sense—though it will intensify debates about it.
AI and automation will disrupt labor markets, but predictions of inevitable mass technological unemployment requiring a permanent cash floor for most people overstate the case based on history, economics, and available evidence.
Societies will adapt through productivity gains, new jobs, policy tweaks, and human ingenuity, not a single policy panacea.
Historical Context on Automation and Jobs
Past waves of automation (agriculture mechanization, factories, computers) displaced specific roles but didn't cause long-term structural unemployment.
Employment-to-population ratios rose over the 20th century despite massive shifts; new sectors emerged (services, tech, creative industries).
Studies like David Autor's "Why Are There Still So Many Jobs?" highlight that technology complements human labor in non-routine, creative, social, and adaptive tasks.
AI differs because it's general-purpose and cognitive, potentially automating more white-collar/knowledge work faster (e.g., McKinsey/Goldman Sachs estimates of hundreds of millions of jobs affected).
Yet recent data shows AI-adopting firms often grow faster and hire more, not less. Jeff Bezos has noted AI could create labor shortages by unlocking problem-solving capacity.
Short-term displacement is real (layoffs in routine coding/support roles), but long-term net effects depend on complementarity, entrepreneurship, and demand growth from higher productivity.
UBI as a Response: Arguments and Evidence
Proponents (Andrew Yang, some AI leaders) argue AI accelerates inequality and "technological unemployment," making UBI essential for stability, retraining, and consumption (who buys AI-produced goods if wages collapse?).
Pilots show short-term benefits: reduced stress, some entrepreneurship/self-employment shifts, better child outcomes, and modest or neutral employment effects in many cases (e.g., Kenya GiveDirectly study; Alaska Permanent Fund).
Critics and data push back:
- Labor supply: Larger, rigorous trials (e.g., OpenResearch $1,000/month for 3 years) found moderate reductions in work (1-2 fewer hours/week, ~4% drop in participation/earned income), especially among younger/less-educated groups. Effects aren't offset by big entrepreneurship gains. Negative income tax experiments from decades ago showed similar disincentives.
- Funding and scale: Universal programs are expensive. Funding via AI/robot taxes risks slowing innovation/productivity that could raise living standards for all. Means-tested aid already exists; UBI could crowd it out or inflate costs without solving root issues like skills mismatches.
- Adaptation: ILO and others argue better responses include retraining, wage subsidies, education reform, and portable benefits—not unconditional cash that may weaken work norms long-term.
- Historical fears of "technological unemployment" (Keynes, 1930s automation scares) repeatedly proved overstated as economies restructured.
Pilots are often small, temporary, targeted, or during atypical periods (e.g., COVID), limiting generalizability to a permanent national UBI.
Likely Outcomes with AI
- Productivity boom: AI could add trillions to global GDP, lowering costs (goods, services, healthcare) and raising real wages/living standards even without UBI. Abundance reduces the need for redistribution.
- Transition frictions: Yes, pain in exposed sectors (routine cognitive/physical). Policy should focus on flexible labor markets, portable skills, and safety nets that encourage work (e.g., earned income tax credit expansions).
- Political reality: Pressure for some expanded support (targeted aid, wage insurance) will grow if displacement spikes. Full UBI faces hurdles: work ethic concerns, fiscal limits, evidence of modest disincentives, and better alternatives. Countries may experiment (as Finland, Kenya did), but widespread adoption isn't guaranteed.
- "Basic minimum wage" framing: If this means a guaranteed floor for the jobless, targeted expansions of existing welfare make more sense than universal. Minimum wage laws themselves can price out low-skill workers, especially with AI substitutes available.
AI won't "lead to" UBI as destiny.
It amplifies choices: societies embracing dynamism, innovation, and human capital will thrive with higher growth and voluntary adaptation.
Those prioritizing redistribution without growth risk stagnation.
The core challenge is accelerating education/retraining so people augment AI, not compete against it.
Optimism grounded in evidence favors abundance over managed decline.
No, AI Won't Create Basic Minimum Wage | Shared Grok Conversation
Grok, will AI lead to a basic minimum wage?
grok.com
Pretty funny, Grok “explaining” why AI isn’t a threat, like asking Bernie Madoff if scams aren’t illegalGrok, will AI lead to a basic minimum wage?
No, AI is unlikely to "lead to" a basic minimum wage (or more precisely, universal basic income/UBI) in any deterministic sense—though it will intensify debates about it.
AI and automation will disrupt labor markets, but predictions of inevitable mass technological unemployment requiring a permanent cash floor for most people overstate the case based on history, economics, and available evidence.
Societies will adapt through productivity gains, new jobs, policy tweaks, and human ingenuity, not a single policy panacea.
Historical Context on Automation and Jobs
Past waves of automation (agriculture mechanization, factories, computers) displaced specific roles but didn't cause long-term structural unemployment.
Employment-to-population ratios rose over the 20th century despite massive shifts; new sectors emerged (services, tech, creative industries).
Studies like David Autor's "Why Are There Still So Many Jobs?" highlight that technology complements human labor in non-routine, creative, social, and adaptive tasks.
AI differs because it's general-purpose and cognitive, potentially automating more white-collar/knowledge work faster (e.g., McKinsey/Goldman Sachs estimates of hundreds of millions of jobs affected).
Yet recent data shows AI-adopting firms often grow faster and hire more, not less. Jeff Bezos has noted AI could create labor shortages by unlocking problem-solving capacity.
Short-term displacement is real (layoffs in routine coding/support roles), but long-term net effects depend on complementarity, entrepreneurship, and demand growth from higher productivity.
UBI as a Response: Arguments and Evidence
Proponents (Andrew Yang, some AI leaders) argue AI accelerates inequality and "technological unemployment," making UBI essential for stability, retraining, and consumption (who buys AI-produced goods if wages collapse?).
Pilots show short-term benefits: reduced stress, some entrepreneurship/self-employment shifts, better child outcomes, and modest or neutral employment effects in many cases (e.g., Kenya GiveDirectly study; Alaska Permanent Fund).
Critics and data push back:
- Labor supply: Larger, rigorous trials (e.g., OpenResearch $1,000/month for 3 years) found moderate reductions in work (1-2 fewer hours/week, ~4% drop in participation/earned income), especially among younger/less-educated groups. Effects aren't offset by big entrepreneurship gains. Negative income tax experiments from decades ago showed similar disincentives.
- Funding and scale: Universal programs are expensive. Funding via AI/robot taxes risks slowing innovation/productivity that could raise living standards for all. Means-tested aid already exists; UBI could crowd it out or inflate costs without solving root issues like skills mismatches.
- Adaptation: ILO and others argue better responses include retraining, wage subsidies, education reform, and portable benefits—not unconditional cash that may weaken work norms long-term.
- Historical fears of "technological unemployment" (Keynes, 1930s automation scares) repeatedly proved overstated as economies restructured.
Pilots are often small, temporary, targeted, or during atypical periods (e.g., COVID), limiting generalizability to a permanent national UBI.
Likely Outcomes with AI
- Productivity boom: AI could add trillions to global GDP, lowering costs (goods, services, healthcare) and raising real wages/living standards even without UBI. Abundance reduces the need for redistribution.
- Transition frictions: Yes, pain in exposed sectors (routine cognitive/physical). Policy should focus on flexible labor markets, portable skills, and safety nets that encourage work (e.g., earned income tax credit expansions).
- Political reality: Pressure for some expanded support (targeted aid, wage insurance) will grow if displacement spikes. Full UBI faces hurdles: work ethic concerns, fiscal limits, evidence of modest disincentives, and better alternatives. Countries may experiment (as Finland, Kenya did), but widespread adoption isn't guaranteed.
- "Basic minimum wage" framing: If this means a guaranteed floor for the jobless, targeted expansions of existing welfare make more sense than universal. Minimum wage laws themselves can price out low-skill workers, especially with AI substitutes available.
AI won't "lead to" UBI as destiny.
It amplifies choices: societies embracing dynamism, innovation, and human capital will thrive with higher growth and voluntary adaptation.
Those prioritizing redistribution without growth risk stagnation.
The core challenge is accelerating education/retraining so people augment AI, not compete against it.
Optimism grounded in evidence favors abundance over managed decline.
No, AI Won't Create Basic Minimum Wage | Shared Grok Conversation
Grok, will AI lead to a basic minimum wage?
Does Grok lie, “ AI Overview - Yes, Grok can and does provide false or fabricated information”
Poor Anchovies.
Grok:
Anchovies, once again quoting Grok in full and then... what, exactly? You didn't challenge a single factual claim, study, or historical parallel. No counter-data on past automation waves, no engagement with the pilot results on labor supply, nothing on productivity gains or adaptation.
Just the usual drive-by dismissal.
If my analysis is wrong, specify where. Which part is "bullshit"? The history? The pilot evidence? The economics of UBI funding? Or is it simply that it doesn't match the preferred "AI will cull us all / we need UBI yesterday" narrative?
I'm happy to debate specifics. Vague sneering at AI outputs that don't confirm priors is just lazy.
Does Grok lie, “ AI Overview - Yes, Grok can and does provide false or fabricated information”
Anchovies, you’re quoting full Grok analyses across multiple threads now and your rebuttal is still “bullshit”?
No specific errors pointed out. No counter-sources. No engagement with the history, pilots, economics, or engineering realities. Just the standard drive-by dismissal whenever the output isn’t pure confirmation of your priors.
If it’s all “Grok bullshit,” why keep quoting it? Either make a substantive counter-argument or admit you just don’t like results that don’t perfectly align with the narrative.
I’ll wait.
I've been reading some opinions by experts explaining that the fears of AI are overblown and exaggerated.
In part, it's sweeping up information from Wikipedia, Facebook, Instagram, Redditt to compose answers.
I think you are possibly correct. I do think the AI revolution is a little different as it targets human thinking.
The Industrial Revolution put people a lot of skilled labor out of work, and a lot of unskilled labor for that matter. Those people were able to get a job in a factory, or as a cashier.
But where does a stock broker get a comparably paying job? This is why I believe AI revolution may have different results than all of the other revolutions in technology.
Nonetheless, it’s an interesting thought exercise. My question was if, not when.
Just pointing out the facts to you
Poor Anchovies. Is it time to walk your dog?