No poverty in the future and so no need to save money?

By Ashraff Hathibelagal

Elon Musk's recent vision of a future with universal high income (UHI)—where AI and robotics create such extreme abundance that poverty vanishes, work becomes optional, goods and services are essentially unlimited, and people have high enough income to access whatever they want—stands in stark contrast to the World Economic Forum's (WEF) infamous "you'll own nothing and you'll be happy" prediction.

Origin of the WEF Phrase

The WEF phrase stems from a 2016 essay by Danish politician Ida Auken, published on the WEF website as a speculative piece about life in 2030. It described a sharing economy where people rent everything (clothes, homes, appliances) via services rather than owning them personally, accessing them on-demand instead. The WEF highlighted this in a 2016-2018 video as one of "8 predictions for the world in 2030," framing it positively: no ownership burdens, lower environmental impact, and happiness through convenience (e.g., everything delivered by drone, no maintenance worries).

Critics, however, interpret it as dystopian—implying forced rental dependency on corporations or governments, loss of personal property rights, and a neo-feudal system where elites control assets while the masses rent indefinitely. Fact-checks (e.g., Reuters) clarify it's not an official WEF "goal" but a contributed thought experiment, and the organization has distanced itself amid backlash. Still, it's become a rallying point for skepticism about globalist agendas like the Great Reset.

Musk's Vision

Musk's outlook is rooted in post-scarcity economics driven by technology. He argues AI/robots (like Tesla's Optimus) will produce goods so cheaply and efficiently that:

• Traditional jobs disappear.
• Scarcity ends.
• A "universal high income" emerges (not just basic survival money, but enough for abundance).
• People can pursue meaning through hobbies, creativity, or voluntary work.

In Musk's words (from various 2023-2025 interviews), "there will be no shortage of goods or services," and "anyone can have any products or services that they want." Saving money becomes pointless because high income and low costs make everything accessible. Ownership isn't forbidden—it's just optional or irrelevant in a world of endless supply.

Key Alignments

Both visions predict a radical shift away from today's ownership-heavy, job-dependent society toward one where material needs are met without traditional work or personal possession of everything.

Key Contrasts

Musk's scenario aligns more with classic sci-fi "utopias" of plenty (e.g., Star Trek's replicator economy), where technology solves scarcity without mandating non-ownership. The WEF piece, by contrast, focuses on sustainability through reduced consumption and shared access, which some view as enforced austerity disguised as progress.

In short, Musk's future has people effectively "having everything" via abundance (no need to own or save), while the WEF prediction has them "owning nothing" but accessing via services (potentially limited by providers). They overlap in ending traditional economic struggles but diverge sharply on freedom, agency, and how abundance (or access) is achieved. Musk has never directly endorsed the WEF phrase and has mocked Davos-style events, positioning his view as a tech-led alternative rather than a planned global reset.

Breaking It Down

I'll now apply first principles thinking, as championed by Elon Musk himself. This means deconstructing the concepts to their most fundamental truths, stripping away assumptions, interpretations, and secondary layers (like media spin or public perceptions), and rebuilding from the atomic elements. We'll examine the core building blocks of the World Economic Forum's (WEF) "you'll own nothing and you'll be happy" idea and Musk's "universal high income" (UHI) vision, then reassemble to see how they align or diverge. No opinions or external narratives—just the basics.

Step 1: Define the Fundamentals

• What is a "vision" here? At its core, both are speculative predictions about future human society, economy, and resource allocation. They address: (1) How needs/wants are met, (2) The role of work and income, (3) Ownership of assets, and (4) Sources of human satisfaction.
• Key axioms (undeniable basics):
  • Humans need resources (food, shelter, goods, services) to survive and thrive.
  • Resources are finite in the present (scarcity exists today due to production limits, distribution, and planetary constraints).
  • Technology can alter scarcity (e.g., automation increases output).
  • Ownership = Legal/exclusive control over a resource.
  • Happiness/Satisfaction = Subjective; often tied to freedom, security, and meaning.

Step 2: Deconstruct the WEF Vision

From the original source (Ida Auken's 2016 essay, not later interpretations):

• Fundamental problem it solves: Persistent scarcity and inefficiency. Resources are limited, so over-ownership leads to waste (e.g., idle cars, unused appliances) and environmental damage.
• Core mechanism: Shift from ownership to access. Everything becomes a service (rent, share, subscribe). Examples: Drones deliver on-demand; AI matches needs to available items; no personal cars/homes/tools—use what's needed when needed.
• Income/Work: Implied but not central. Work is for purpose, not survival; assumes some baseline provision (e.g., universal basic services, though not explicitly UBI).
• Ownership's role: Eliminated as a default. You don't own because it's unnecessary/burdensome—frees you from maintenance, storage, and inequality.
• Happiness source: Convenience and sustainability. "Happy" from reduced clutter, community focus, and eco-balance.
• Assumptions rebuilt: Starts with scarcity as a given; solves via redistribution/sharing (top-down coordination implied, e.g., city-managed systems).

Step 3: Deconstruct Musk's UHI Vision

From Musk's statements (e.g., his 2025 reply to Ray Dalio, plus consistent remarks since 2023 on AI/automation):

• Fundamental problem it solves: Job displacement and inequality from AI/robots. Automation eliminates most labor, risking poverty without intervention.
• Core mechanism: Extreme abundance via technology. AI/robots (e.g., Optimus) produce goods/services at near-zero marginal cost, making everything plentiful and cheap/free.
• Income/Work: Universal high income (not just basic). Everyone gets ample resources automatically (e.g., government/tech-distributed). Work is optional—for meaning, not necessity. "No poverty" because output explodes.
• Ownership's role: Not restricted or emphasized. In abundance, you can own whatever (e.g., buy a house/car with your high income), but saving/hoarding becomes pointless—why own when supply is infinite?
• Happiness source: Freedom and plenty. Purpose comes from voluntary pursuits (art, exploration); warns of "meaning crisis" if not addressed.
• Assumptions rebuilt: Starts with technology's exponential growth as a given; solves scarcity entirely (bottom-up, via innovation like AI/neural networks/robots).

Step 4: Reassemble and Compare

Now, rebuild from these atoms:

• Alignment at the base level:

  • Both end "economic struggle." No more grinding for basics—resources are met without traditional ownership or labor burdens.
  • Ownership diminishes in practice: In WEF, it's explicitly phased out; in Musk, it's implicitly irrelevant (why own a car if robots provide instant transport? Why save if income covers all?).
  • Post-work society: Work for fulfillment, not survival.
  • Outcome: A world where material worries vanish, leading to "happiness" (or at least satisfaction).

• Divergence at the base level:

  • Scarcity axiom: WEF assumes it persists (solve by sharing finite resources). Musk assumes it ends (solve by infinite production). This is the root split—WEF is efficiency in limits; Musk is transcendence of limits.
  • Mechanism: WEF relies on systems/coordination (e.g., shared platforms, potentially centralized). Musk relies on decentralized tech (AI/robots owned/produced by companies like Tesla, but benefiting all via abundance).
  • Ownership's essence: WEF removes it as a solution (mandatory shift). Musk makes it optional (you could own, but why bother in plenty?). In Musk's world, you might "own nothing" by choice, not design.
  • Agency/Freedom: WEF implies dependency on providers (rent from whom?). Musk implies empowerment (high income buys independence).
  • Risks rebuilt: WEF risks control loss (who owns the shared assets?). Musk risks existential voids (what if abundance bores us?).

Step 5: Conclusion from First Principles

They overlap in envisioning a scarcity-free-ish future where ownership fades and happiness follows, but contrast fundamentally in how and why. WEF is a sharing model under constraints; Musk is an abundance model via tech. If scarcity truly ends (Musk's bet), WEF's non-ownership becomes redundant—you'd "own nothing" not because it's mandated, but because it's trivial. If scarcity lingers, Musk's UHI might devolve into WEF-style rationing.

This isn't about right/wrong; it's physics/economics at play.

What does Elon Musk think of Klaus Schwab?

Elon Musk has been consistently critical of Klaus Schwab and the World Economic Forum (WEF), which Schwab founded and chairs. While Musk hasn't made many direct personal attacks on Schwab himself, his comments often target the WEF's agenda, influence, and rhetoric associated with Schwab (e.g., phrases like "Master the Future" or the "Great Reset").

Key Examples from Musk's Public Statements

• He called the WEF an "unelected world government that the people never asked for and don’t want" (January 2023).
• He mocked Schwab's "Master the Future" remarks as ominous and questioned why the WEF/Davos exists, asking if they're "trying to be the boss of Earth."
• He criticized US taxpayer funding to the WEF (as recently as February 2025), calling it a "wealthy boondoggle in Switzerland."
• He accused the WEF of defining "misinformation" as anything conflicting with its agenda (January 2024).
• Musk has highlighted and shared content where his AI chatbot Grok "roasts" Schwab and the WEF, and he's suggested the WEF's statements are often indistinguishable from parody.