To offer a useful analogy: we only notice the bad lip filler jobs.

AI is all over the place and becoming more undetectable by the day. Detectability also relates to the proficiency of the person using it. There are many highly intelligent people using AI surreptitiously and to great effect. Few understand this.

They desperately need to restore status, and one easy option is, in effect, "oh you're still ugly on the inside."

By way of analogy, it has the same underlying motivation as the various sumptuary laws that arose in response to the mass-manufacture of silk.

> The Elizabethan Restrictions: In 1574, Queen Elizabeth I passed strict sumptuary laws to curb "unprecedented social mobility". The Crown decreed that no woman could wear silk cloaks unless her husband was at least a knight, and restricted fabrics mixed with gold or silver to Earls and above.

> Income Thresholds: In 14th-century England, if an esquire or merchant wanted to wear silk, they had to legally prove they made at least £100 a year. If they didn't meet the financial threshold, wearing the fabric was a criminal offense.

If you can't afford to live in your city, what distinguishes you from the people in the boonies? Why should they be relegated to the boonies while you successfully game the system?

Every single economic transaction ultimately connects to people generating demand. EVERY single one. All B2B transactions included.

Sometimes this can appear to not be the case if there's a significant lag time between initial B2B transactions and some end consumer demand. That lag is bridged by hopeful investors and creditors.

The present AI buildout is an example of this. And it is not immune from the principle. There will ultimately need to be real people generating real demand somewhere in the economy in order to justify an economic return on the massive outlay.

Government expenditures are also included. Tax dollars used to pay for things are ultimately satisfying demand generated by citizens. Even, believe it or not, a deranged government blowing up random people in the Middle East. That still traces to the (perceived) security needs of some population.

The aggregate demand equation is as follows:

AD = C + I + G + NX

C = Consumer Spending I = Investment G = Government Spending NX = Net Exports

What's going to happen in the future is that demand will have to shift in this equation. Remember that Investment needs to be justified by some demand created elsewhere — it is in essence the purchase of an IOU predicated on future demand that must ultimately trace down to real people. We are all broadly in agreement that Consumption will contract, as labor is progressively disempowered and capital continues to concentrate. Let's ignore NX.

The answer is that the sources of demand in the future will likely shift to, primarily, (1) demand still generated by wealthy people consuming things (e.g. mansions, yachts, rockets, ego-affirming Mars colonies) and (2) government spending that serves entire populations.

This all assumes, of course, that we continue with the present economic model, in spite of the immense human suffering and turmoil that is likely on the horizon, as we transition into a fundamentally different technological age.

You need to read more history my friend

This couldn't be further from the truth.

History demonstrates categorically that violence is the last and most reliable form of recourse available to the disempowered, once society has trended too far towards either an excess of freedom or an excess of equality. And, in fact, our position in that balance between freedom and equality is perpetually oscillating, tending to finally reverse direction only in response to violent revolt.

This cycle has repeated over and over, essentially since the dawn of civilization. This was among the most important insights of 'The Lessons of History' by Will and Ariel Durant. And it's baked on two very simple insights about human nature: (1) those in power rarely give it up willingly (they often do the opposite) and (2) fear, on average, is and always will be a far stronger motivator than appeals to a person's conscience.