If AI Agents Take the Jobs, Who Buys the Stuff?
Key topics
Cheaper prices help, sure, but not if folks don’t have paychecks. New jobs might show up, but I’m not convinced the timing works. Also, if most gains go to a few owners, their extra spending won’t replace everyone else’s demand.
So what actually keeps demand up? Profit-sharing so workers own a piece? Some kind of income floor from “automation dividends”? Totally new markets that soak up all this output? Or maybe real-world limits (energy, compute, regulation) slow things down. I might be missing something—what’s the concrete mechanism here?
The article discusses the potential economic implications of AI replacing human jobs, and the discussion revolves around possible solutions and consequences, including universal basic income, profit-sharing, and a post-scarcity economy.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Moderate engagementFirst comment
30m
Peak period
8
0-6h
Avg / period
2.9
Based on 20 loaded comments
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Sep 5, 2025 at 1:01 PM EDT
4 months ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Sep 5, 2025 at 1:31 PM EDT
30m after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
8 comments in 0-6h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Sep 7, 2025 at 6:33 PM EDT
4 months ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midas_World
has a short story The Midas Plague in it where the problem is that post the development of cheap fusion resources are so abundant and production so efficient that keeping the economy working requires that people stay on a treadmill of consumption. This is such a burden that lower-class people are forced to consume more than upper-class people. The protagonist of the story gets his robots to consume his good and fears that he'll get in trouble for this but instead he gets a medal. The original version of the short story as it appeared in the April 1954 Galaxy magazine is linked from the Wikipedia article.
Never pay to store your stuff somewhere else.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income (wikipedia link)
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22eQ9iLBfY4 (Varoufakis explains the concept very well)
Of course, that's easier said than done a non-fully, air-gaped controlled economy.
IOW we will all become meditation gurus and lifetyle consultants and personal shoppers and perform other services that only the very wealthy can afford right now.
Right now, we attach income to work. You get job, you get paid. The two are bound at the hip.
For over 100 years we've been watching as machines take over doing the work. Society is more productive than ever, but with far fewer people. Right now we kinda gloss over this by creating "bullshit jobs". We have some social safety nets, but we scorn those who use them.
Fast forward another 100 years. Machines now produce everything. 1% of people have (necessary) jobs. 99% collect a "basic income", machines do all the productive work, all "income" flows back around as taxes to become redistributed as basic income.
Right now this sounds very dystopic. Culturally we still bind "job" to "worth" in a very visceral way. If I suggest "everyone gets paid, even if they dont have a job", that provokes a very intense response in some countries and a less intense response in others.
As mechanization increases, actual jobs decrease. This trend is obvious. As a whole the idea of creating a "bottom level" of society is quietly becoming mainstream. Generally pushing that "bottom level" upwards is happening.
It's not hard to forsee a future where production is sufficient, energy is cheap, the "bottom" is quite high, where we tax production (not people), where we dispense with the fiction of bullshit jobs.
Some cultures are more ready for it than others. And there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth along the way. Societal change has always been thus. But the end result is inevitable.
There is no real "loss" here. The transaction between the buyer and the seller still happens. The middle-man has to figure out a different way to earn a living by providing a different service that AI can't provide. There will always be a buyer and a seller if the product is something you want to buy.
Most of the economy is made up by middle-man trying to offer a "service" or capture value in-between. Getting rid of them is not going to "collapse" the economy. Some people will be displaced but I am not sure why the value producers or acquirers will really care.
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-1-137-53020-2
Long story short, there are a number of different ways middlemen provide value:
- bringing people together
- acting as quality control
- holding parties to a higher standard in a way that both can stomach
and a few others.
Well worth a read.
If you own an organization and can afford to pay the salaries of 10 (or 2 or 20...) souls, you'd have to be very cheap and short-sighted to prefer reducing your payroll instead of boosting your productivity 10X (or 2X or 20X).
I don't see AI taking jobs, I see AI:
- Taking companies/organizations owned by cheap people.
- Taking huge projects ―like building a browser or an OS from scratch― to small groups or even solo developers.
Simple answer - the Department of War.
- "But what about the others" - you ask.
- "What others?" - is the answer.
For people who live low lives, barter is going to be good enough. For overlords, they can also barter with each other, because who cares about money when you can grab real stuffs? There are a handful of skilled human servants who serve the overlords, but they are not numerous enough for a mature market -- their overlords will provide them with whatever they need anyway.
I have long realized that monetary transaction is just one abstraction for the elites to buy human resources and nature resources. Some currency, like the USD, also serves as "entry ticket" for some transactions (like you cannot purchase X in bulk without USD).
Free market economics depends on the idea that resources are scarce. If you don't have scarce resources you don't have trade because everything you want you either have or can have in abundance. Although it's probably the single most important thing for your survival, no one trades air for example.
In a post-AGI world where there is no scarcity and everything is as abundant as air (for those with the AI) trade halts.
I suspect conventional economics, like many things, simply stops making sense in a post-AGI world.