and op eds

Anything that requires people at the extreme ends of the ability distribution.

As will other branches of entertainment

But if you're not a 130+ IQ person, or a 10/10 model, etc, you're looking at increased competition.

imagine public AI

In fact, without day jobs, these areas would likely thrive.

you make it develope your idea.. and you offer it on the market

This sort of thing would only be remotely possible in a one world government, though, I think...

I think what we're going to see in the near term is increased support for UBI or some sort of income supplementation program like negative income tax, along with societal change taking advantage at the dropping cost of mundane human labor.

i don't think it would be without ai managing all laws and adjusting to basic human rights

Mundane human labor like servants basically.

Illegal Mexican workers are going to start facing competition from legal workers.

Laborers and nannies and gardeners.

And the stay-at-home mom is gonna make a comeback.

if you have nothing to do and you like to be outside you will manage your own garden... many people find it enjoyable

If you can afford to have a garden you have something to do.

The stay at home mom was lost to inflation.

Actually it remains to be seen whether it'll be a stay-at-home mom or a stay-at-home dad that becomes the norm. Men might find themselves out of luck in a job market that places more value on people skills, human touch, and empathy.

sports

There's a saturation point to that market, and nobody wants to pay to see joe average. They want to pay to see people who are 3 standard deviations above the mean.

also i think cops will be replaced with machine you will guide from somewhere else (video game)

In societies today with extreme wealth disparity, traditional police are often supplemented with private security services for wealthy neighborhoods. See South Africa.

so does any of you know how many ppl in the world have at least 1 mil dollars? 10, 20 million? I know there is at least 1k billionairs

1% would be more than 70 mil

~~the top 1% in the United States alone earn around $200,000 a year.~~

465,626 a year is the top 1% as of 2014.

this is aprox 3,5 mil ppl average?

My head hurts too much to find that.

I've been dealing with an infection all day, leading me to vomiting and dizziness all day...

ugh... nvm... my point is... there is a lot of wealthy ppl

sure.

https://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2016/08/see_the_average_income_of_top_1.html

anyway not all have power. But are influential enough

can be

okay, this thread in here seems to have missed a few things.
1) Labor is what creates value. Its out time and effort that is of value. which is why automation is so popular, its cheap. Because it does not labor. The cost of it comes from the labor put into maintaining it. As that gets more and more automated, that gets cheaper to the point of free.
2) if automation gets to a point where basically all our basic needs can be met by machines alone, why does someone need even a UBI? You just have a robot build your house, and visit the local food and drink machine for food and water. Then go to the doc robot.
3) if things are not yet to number 2 standards, where are wealthy people getting their wealth? The same principle applies today that applied when European explores first arrived anywhere. Right now poor people give an equivalent of shinny but useless stones to wealthy people, who view this as "expensive" or "fancy", in exchange for basically left over bread. Their wealth comes from treading something useless to them, in this example table craps, for something they find very valuable, aka the shinny rocks

Grenade's points are actually more eloquently put thoughts that I've had on the subject.

At least one and two are.

There is no magical wealth that comes out of no where in the system. the max wealth of the world is the total number of able body labors - non-able bodies + whatever offset our current tech level allows for.

Part of what I was getting at, referring to it not being comprehensible within any modern economy is well outlined in #2

Labor theory of value is Marxist in origin.

yes, but the problem is, that makes everyone equally poor