The economy isn't ready. Basically, all companies right now are sprinting toward increasing profit margins by trying to do more with fewer people. The problem is that, on this scale, they will lose income because unemployed people make terrible consumers, they will only buy what is strictly necessary. Consequently, society is in a race to the bottom, which could lead to extreme suffering and potential revolutions in many countries. Democracies will likely have it easier in general because everyone shares the responsibility, in a sense, through voting. However, the USA, which is extremely polarized—will have a tough time because animosity between the political sides is already at an all-time high, even without an economic collapse. China, on the other hand, will also be in a difficult situation. If the West collapses financially, consumption of Chinese-produced goods will drop drastically. This will create massive unemployment in China, causing public rage to increase. In a non-democratic country, it is much easier for the population to point the blame in a single direction.
Companies don't serve poor people; they have no money. Companies will pivot to serving the people who have money. If that means they only serve rich people, then that means we'll have more yacht makers and fewer dollar stores.
More likely is people are stripped entirely of any economic value and influence. Tribesmen struggling to survive in a mad max apocalyptic scenario while the world's money is spent and made in a business to business environment, in protected sites defended by autonomous loitering munitions that the uneducated masses attribute to god entities within a few generations of knowledge loss.
Rich people are limited resources and they would not buy 100 yatches even if they could afford it. As seen in history if the majority of people in a country is poor, revolution is just a matter of time. It's in a countries best interest to make sure wealth at least somewhat evenly distributed. At least good enough so the masses won't get angry.
Right now they're going on ~5-10 superyachets each. I could see them buying 100 in the future after they're 100x as rich. I think 5-10 which are 100x larger would also count for these purposes.
For car collection people will keep going well into the hundreds. Hell Jay Leno just did a video with Joe Biden yet again and his corvette, but Jay Leno famously has hundreds of cars.
Hoarding wealth is itself quite boring. There are many goals a person could have for their life, and "getting more money" is the least interesting. My question is always, TO DO WHAT? If you can't answer that question in some way that helps people (and then follow through if/when you do get that money) then your life is hollow no matter how many billions you have.
Early industrialization meant industrial canneries to feed people, building cities to house everyone from the countryside, indoor plumbing.
And the AI revolution is no housing, worsening food, a few people with yachts, the Epstein class getting away with what they want to do, and no new plumbing hookups because the datacenter took the municipal water supply.
Democracies will not have any easier time. The issue is the voting base is poorly informed by design so that it might be manipulated by outside forces. The US government does a poor job propagandizing its own citizens and defers that task to the free market. As such the people are never really voting in their own best interest, but in the interest of these free market propagandists who are also invested in this AI outcome.
People being poor is fine for these free market elites. Look at how billionaires live in India, probably even better than they live in the US.
