If the robots (insert any other major disruption) leaves us with nothing to lose, and enough of us have nothing to lose….

Then eventually those with something to lose will have a big problem.

This is an interesting topic to chat about. Don't remember if it's been posed yet. Rather than questioning whether it will happen, let's assume that some breakthrough, for lack of a better word, will allow robots to replace 60% of the current workforce by 2033. I don't think that's likely but for the sake of conversation pretend it's real. What does society look like?

I think the asshats at the top are smart enough to not let things get to the rebellion stage, at least in the US sphere of influence. Probably see doles paid out. Just enough to give people something to lose. Maybe some laws to protect human employment or a robot tax. Part of the solution could be to ship people to other places. Whether thats considered a punishment or honor depends on the level of risk involved I think.

some of that falls into the debate of a universal basic income.

there would be a large amount of hatred towards the robots, same as we see with companies shipping jobs overseas.

there would also likely be a significant economic downturn during that time as the lower level menial jobs would be the easiest to replace first, but that would also be the lowest paid people with the least skills and least willingness to learn any new skills, but they historically also spend more than many other groups due to poor money management skills.

I think it came up a few times in this thread from my original post to subsequent posts.

My theory is that there will be a race to use AI, automation and robotics to get ahead of the completion and maximize profits. This is no different than companies racing to move manufacturing to China and other countries from the US. Did it destroy the US economy? No. Did it move more money to the rich and away from the middle and lower class? Yes, so I would expect more of that, but there is a limit to how much inequality society can sustain.

In your example, if 60%+ of people have zero income then demand drops a lot. Industries would be using AI, automation and robotics to make products, but who would be buying it? They would be losing most of their customers in the process, so they would need to shift their business upmarket. There would be no point to make economy cars, for instance, if the average buyer is in the top 10%.

Let's go more dystopian. Let's say 5% are robotics and AI engineers, 1% are CEOs, top dogs (before AI takes over these positions too) and 0.1% are the owner class and everyone else is dirt poor to farmer/hunter-gather levels. There is no war because robotic armies have taken all the guns and are far too advanced. Any attempts at rebelling has been squashed, so people have accepted their fate. What would that be like for the economy? What is clear is that a lot would be pretty expensive without the economies of scale. Production would be cheap, but for instance, what would a national internet service cost to run internet to all corners of the nation, so a rich person could go anywhere and still get service, but for only 5% of people paying. This probably isn't a huge deal, but if five people have to divide up a bill for one hundred people then they each need to pay for twenty bills, which for $100/month internet, that would be $2,000/month for internet, and probably $2000/month for cellular service, maybe. We know that economies of scale work to reduce the price by 10-20% per doubling, which means it would work the opposite way too, so each half would raise the price by 20% potentially. 5% of 333 million is 17 million, so 4-5 times something would go up by 20%, maybe. Paying $2000-2500 for a $1000 TV wouldn't be the end of the world, but things can add up across many items.

The other possibility is that society has a new class of slave laborers that means everything gets much cheaper. Robots can work 24-7 and lightening fast, so productivity goes up with costs going down by several factors. Society creates a UBI to be enough to keep society from devolving into unrest, and people don't need to work to live comfortably enough, preferring a leisure life to raise families and enjoy the basics of life. There is a high entry price to be well off, so working is left for the few owning class or gifted/engineers.

People hold the voting power and vote in representatives that will vote out AI, automation and robotics. UBI and a job are both guaranteed. AI still advances in other countries that don't have these limitations, which ultimately is problematic.

AI destroys us and turns us into batteries, and they create a program to keep us under control that we call The Matrix.

What future do you see most likely?

The asshats at the top are never smart enough…

This one seems to be the most likely eventuality in this scenario. I think it will look more 'Expanse' than 'Star Trek' though because resources are still limited. Things get depressing if there's nothing one can do to improve their situation. Being unnecessary is different than being unsupported.

I don't think people en masse would be able to self organize enough to enact a ban. There would need to be some big money behind it unless something else changes. Individuals are reasonably intelligent, mobs are dumb AF.

Individually they are just as intelligent as anyone else. But there are less of them which means less dilution to the mob.

Mobs don't self organize well, but they can if the movement empowers people to act. Politicians looking to get elected by galvanizing mobs will organize a campaign around such issues. I don't doubt this could happen.

The way things work in the US now is politicians at the national level need financial backing to start with. It's all about the money, and if the people benefitting from the robots are the only ones with money, they can just buy more politicians to shut down opposition and make excuses as to how it's a good thing. Buy enough ads and talking heads and the repetition goes to work. The "competition" just makes it easier to manipulate the hole by adjusting support from one side to the other. The "Those guys are doing this thing and I don't like those guys so this thing must be bad" mentality is easy to manipulate.

Seem to be fixated on manipulating holes.
SNAFU
Would robots give that a high priority?

Robotizens United

I'm not denying what is typical. I'm suggesting that there have been many grassroots movements that have been successful at generating money and getting people into office: Bernie Sanders, AOC (The Squad), Jesse Ventura, Fetterman, different Tea Party, MAGA and QANON/alt groups/squads. Unless Youtube, FB, X and all media censored certain candidates, it would be easy to galvanize people to vote for candidates if people were greatly distressed and displaced by AI, robotics and automation.

We are seeing many examples of issues where the government is deciding for the minority and not representing the majority of people like for abortion, universal healthcare, environmental policies and free college, to name a few things, so I'm sure representatives can ignore their constituents and align themselves with their personal and financial backers, but this becomes harder and harder to do when people are motivated, galvanized, united and focused behind a common cause. In such a situation, it would be hard for a corporate candidate, regardless of financial support, to win against a people's candidate.